Happy and Shiny

Let's start it off with a blog-related bit of news. A certain school newspaper, which rhymes with "Shmoracle", rejected my first guest column because, despite its uproarious humor and scathing insight, was apparently not "a suitable topic for a junior to write about" (the college admissions process). Although my ego is bruised and will likely never recover, I can at least take some solace in the fact that my article will surely be replaced only by pressing matters like "10th Grader Gears Up For Fencing Season" and "Science Teacher Tells All About Beloved Pet". Just kidding, "Shmoracle", I love you. Please publish my revised draft due Friday.

Meanwhile, my most recent posts on pop music's top 20 have generated numerous complaints that the writing staff here at "The Optimist" is too negative. Wanting to combat such irrational and obviously completely false generalizations, I will devote today's post to a list of 20 songs that are fantastic and completely worth listening to. Hopefully, this should give me about two months worth of complaining and strictly negative reviews before anyone starts to have the same concerns again. Actually, Oscar season is approaching and, save one or two, I loved almost every nominee, so there will be several days' worth of gushing around the end of the month. Anyway, here are a few songs that I do like.

1. Going On- Gnarls Barkley: Some more good stuff from the vocal chords of Cee-Lo Green, only unlike his top 20 hit, not laden with unnecessary vulgarities.

2. In the Beginning- K'naan: You might recognize it from the end credits of Harold and Kumar 2, although that would reflect somewhat poorly about how many times you have watched Harold and Kumar 2.

3. Bonfire- Third Eye Blind: Hard to pick one Third Eye Blind song, since they are my favorite band, but this is light and catchy. If you like it, check out some of the heavier stuff, like "Slow Motion" and "Motorcycle Drive-by".

4. Da Art of Storytellin' Pt 1- Outkast: Calm but powerful. Outkast will always be classic. Sadly, the same can't be said of Big Boi's solo career, but still.

5. You Never Know- Wilco: Started listening to a little Wilco after they were referenced about 500 times in "Funny People". Pretty good stuff.

6. Pinch Me- Barenaked Ladies: Possibly the cream of a very, very heavy crop of good songs by Barenaked Ladies, the choice band of educated upper-middle class 45-year-olds.

7. Mellow Fellow- B.o.B: Before B.o.B sold out and started making songs with people like Bruno Mars, I was his only fan in the world and he made superb and completely ridiculous songs like this one.

8. Sparks- Coldplay: This has to be one of the three best soft rock songs ever made. Perfect for some soulful air guitar strumming.

9. A*s Like That- Eminem: Come on, if you don't think this video is funny, there's something wrong with you. Or you are more mature than a 9-year-old. One or the other.

10. Hollywood- Nickelback: Nickelback used to make some pretty good guitar-heavy songs before they tried way too hard to be philosophical and cranked out some horrific ones like "If Today Was Your Last Day". But this is a throwback to a different era, and it's good stuff.

11. Know Your Onion!- The Shins: Yeah, I really enjoy The Shins. Speaking of things I enjoy, did I ever tell you about... [this content censored by "Shmoracle" for topicality reasons] ...and that's how I know Jessica Alba gets wild.

12. Take On Me- a-ha: In the words of my father, "This is the best song by Norwegians that I have ever heard!"

13. Teenage Dream- Katy Perry: Who can resist? By the way, did you know Katy Perry's mother is an evangelical Christian minister? That has to be pretty high up on the list of strained family relationships.

14. Mathematics- Mos Def: One of the best songs from one of the best rappers. Don't be scared away by the title. If Mos can do the math involved in the song, so can you.

15. Black Republican- Nas ft. Jay-Z: These two together on a song guarantees greatness. All of the songs when they were feuding and swearing at each other were awesome too, but I don't think they fit with the spirit of this list.

16. The World At Large- Modest Mouse: This song is really good, except where it loses lyrical inspiration and just tears out three lines worth of lyrics from their bigger hit, "Float On". That's a little shameless. But still, a very good song.

17. Don't Look Back in Anger- Oasis: I've heard that Oasis envisioned themselves being the next Beatles, which is like the Segway people thinking they were going to overtake the car. But Oasis still made some very quality music.

18. How You Like Me Now- The Heavy: My current favorite song. It was used gratuitously in "The Fighter", and by that I mean that I'm pretty sure they were playing it on a continuous loop in the background throughout the entire movie. It pumps me up just like it pumped up Mark Wahlberg (just one of the many ways we are similar- we also share practically identical physiques).

19. The Most Beautiful Girl (In the Room)- Flight of the Conchords: If you don't listen to their music and watch the two glorious seasons of their show, you are dead to me. Well, not quite. But you should get into Flight of the Conchords. It's magical.

20. Goodbye My Lover- James Blunt: Ha! You really thought I was going to go 20 whole songs and say only positive things? This is one of the five worst songs ever made, although the use of it in "The Office" is absolutely priceless. James Blunt is an embarrassment to society. Bleah.

That's all. Hope you enjoyed the positivity and such. Hurrah! Remember to become a follower. It may require the creation of a Blogger or Google account if you don't already have one, but it is incredibly painless and easy, I promise. Do it. Also, forward this link to anyone you think would enjoy it. Thanks!... and a final "sorry" to "Shmoracle".

The "Top" 20 (Part 2 of 2)

This is the second of two parts. If you missed the first part, click here.

10. Hey Baby (Drop it to the Floor)- Pitbull ft. T-Pain. In all honesty, quite a catchy song. T-Pain really fell off the map for a while, probably because every other person in the country, including people like Ke$ha and Bruno Mars, realized they could use the same technology as him to make their voices sound somewhat decent. I will never fully forgive him for that, but at least this song is alright.

9. The Time (Dirty Bit)- Black Eyed Peas. The Black Eyed Peas are performing at the Super Bowl. If they play this song, I will probably go into a coma and miss the second half. Get it? Because it's a bad song. Yeah.

8. Raise Your Glass- P!nk. The part of this song where she goes "What's the dealio?" is pretty good, I guess. The rest of it is just a far less catchy version of "Teenage Dream" in terms of rhythm and tune, which is a pretty sad thing to say about a song. As for the lyrics, they can be summarized, as almost every set of P!nk lyrics can be, as "I'm a woman, and I'm tough. So f*** you."

7. We R Who We R- Ke$ha. I got through about thirty seconds of this song, and then she said something like "I've got Jesus on my necklace", which is right up there on the single dumbest lines ever, and I turned it off. If there were a contest for "least talented current pop star", Ke$ha would win by a mile, which is like winning a "lowest IQ on Jersey Shore" contest by a mile. It says a lot.

6. Hold It Against Me- Britney Spears. Things I hold against Britney Spears: she thrust Kevin Federline into the public eye, which alone should be punishable by death; a lot of her music makes Ke$ha almost listenable; her two children are going to be the most traumatized people this side of anyone who sat through all of The Rock's newest blunder, "Tooth Fairy"; and, worst of all, a couple of her songs are pretty good and I like them against my will. This song, however, is not one of those. Don't waste your time. Just listen to "Circus" a few more times. That song slaps.

5. What's My Name- Rihanna ft. Drake. Well, I'm sorry it had to fall all the way down to me to solve this problem, but your name is Rihanna and your name is Drake. You're welcome.

4. Tonight (I'm Lovin You)- Enrique Iglesias. Me? You're loving me? Save it, please. Life would be infinitely better if Enrique Iglesias went back to the whole ping pong ball bouncing phase. That was good stuff. This, not so much.

3. Black and Yellow- Wiz Khalifa. I'm going to make a song called "Red and Orange", which using this as my model, I expect to reach the top of the charts. All you have to do is say a two-color combination over and over, and then talk senselessly about things like "hoes" between the color repetition. This is not rap. This is talking. Come on.

2. Firework- Katy Perry. I don't mind Katy Perry in the least bit, but this is certainly not 1/4 as good as Teenage Dream or Hot N Cold. That said, it is much better than most of the other stuff on this list because it knows exactly what it is- a really low quality song that will prematurely educate eight year olds about mature topics when they learn the lyrics- and doesn't try to be anything else. Really all you can ask for.

1. Grenade- Bruno Mars. This is number one? This? I.. I just can't. I can't. God.

Remember to follow the blog! Seriously, follow it. If you don't have an account, it is easiest to create a "Blogger" account to follow- shouldn't take more than 30 seconds or so, and there's really no sort of commitment involved- basically the only thing the account will be useful for is being a follower of this (and other, if you want) blogs. Also, don't forget that you are more than welcome any time to share this or any other post with anyone you think might enjoy it. And then make sure they become a follower, too. Thanks!

The "Top" 20 (Part 1 of 2)

I haven't been keeping up too well with pop music lately, due mainly to the fact that most of it is what is referred to in sophisticated circles as "absolute s***". Being one for second chances, however, I decided to take a quick perusal of the top 20 songs on the Billboard Hot 100 and see how I liked them. Here's the first of a two part summary of what I found.

20. F**k You- Cee-Lo Green. Really? Green is an excellent vocalist (he's great as the Gnarls Barkley frontman) and, out of all the songs in the world, he decides to make one called "F**k You". That's really all you need to know here.

19. Stereo Love- Edward Maya and Vika Jigulina. The first problem with this song is that it's sung by someone named "Vika", which is even less of a name than "Cee-Lo". The second problem with this song is that it is really, really, really, really bad. Even that sentence doesn't adequately describe its badness, but that's the best I can do. It's awful. God. On the plus side, when I googled the lyrics, I was sent to a site that had a picture of someone resembling Jessica Alba at the top. So it wasn't a total loss. But the song sucks. Never listen to it.

18. Only Girl (In the World)- Rihanna. Remember when Rihanna used to make good songs? I don't either, but apparently there was a period that fits that description. That time is not now. If I didn't know better, I could have confused this for a Ke$ha song. You never want to be confused with someone who spells their name with a dollar sign. This is a major step backward for Rihanna.

17. Yeah 3x- Chris Brown. Thankfully for Chris Brown, Michael Jackson set the bar very, very high for what is considered a forgivable crime by a pop star, because otherwise Brown's domestic violence against Rihanna would probably have been the end of his career. Instead, he still gets to make songs like "Yeah 3x", which is an offense of a similar degree.

16. Rocketeer- Far East Movement. Alright, time-out. What producer was sitting in his office and thought to himself, "Boy, I bet what the public is looking for right now is a little more 'music' from Far East Movement"? This is like if a movie came out called "Season of the Witch 2: The Witch Strikes Back", and then that movie made a lot of money. I won't even listen to this song. Come on.

15. No Hands- Waka Flaka Flame. This song is beyond terrible, and it is supposedly "rap". Tupac and Notorious B.I.G are doing flips in their graves. I know you're thinking, "Wow, is he ever going to say a song is good?" Well, I was really hoping "Teenage Dream" was on this list, because that song is AWESOME, but it's shamefully fallen to number 33, so don't get your hopes up for anything too positive.

14. 6 Foot 7 Foot- Lil Wayne ft. Cory Gunz. There was a time when Lil Wayne was good. During that time, he did not feature people named "Cory Gunz" on his tracks. If I were an aspiring rapper, and the best thing I could come up with for a stage name was "Cory Gunz", I would probably quit to do something less embarrassing, like work the 4 AM shift at a 24/7 McDonald's.

13. Coming Home- Diddy-Dirty Money. Wow, this song is not bad at all. Nice job, Diddy. Between this and your somewhat humorous performance in the often painful "Get Him to the Greek", my respect for you is going way up. Seriously. Not bad.

12. Just the Way You Are- Bruno Mars. Anybody who's seen "Black Swan" doubtless recalls the scene where Winona Ryder stabs herself repeatedly in the face with a nail file. That is what I fantasize about doing when I hear this song. I understand it's a classic member of the "songs for girls with really low self-esteems to listen to" genre, but it sucks, so get over it.

11. F**kin' Perfect- P!nk. This is a great addition to the "popular songs with obscenities in the title" genre pioneered about eight paragraphs ago by Cee-Lo Green. It is also the third-best song on this list after genre-mate "F**k You" and that one Diddy song that wasn't bad at all. What a sad statement. Can't wait to do part 2 tomorrow.

Remember to follow the blog! I insist, do it before you leave the page. It won't take more than a minute and then you'll be added to the prestigious list of followers and I will like you infinitely more. Also don't forget to pass along this link to anyone you think might enjoy it. Thanks!

Thank You for Smoking

While I don't understand what the motivation is for someone to smoke cigarettes, I cannot and do not ever plan to tell anyone they can't. It's their choice. What should not be their choice is parading around the middle of town with their cigarette in their hands like it's some sort of harmless toy and blowing smoke into the air as if I am not standing right behind them, enjoying all the luxuries of a secondhand smoke, which surmount to the feeling in one's lungs equivalent to the feeling in one's ears when hearing a Justin Bieber song. Allow me to recount a choice few of my encounters with some delightful young men who happened to be smoking in public. It should be noted that when someone's smoke blows into my face, I force a cough that is faker than all of the breasts in the Kardashian family put together.

Encounter 1. After a Giants game a few years ago, I was walking back to the car with a few friends behind a charming young man who was enjoying his post-game smoke, and by this I mean seeing if he could channel every bit of smoke produced by his cigarette directly into my nostrils (or so it seemed). Most people would have let this go, since the man was huge and had more muscle mass in one arm than I do on my whole body, but I am what is referred to in circles of higher learning as a "moron", and coughed as loudly as I could. Our dear friend turned around, looked at me, and summoned all the smoke in the world into and then back out of his mouth and into my face. I coughed louder. Finally, he blew even more smoke in my direction, and also did the shaky thing with the cigarette so that all the delicious nicotine-y smell just wafts out in the most extravagant fashion. "MMMM", I said, as loudly as I could, "smells like lung cancer!". Somehow, I am still alive. But the point is, despite how idiotic I was, that the guy was an idiot too and should have waited until he got into his car to light up.

Encounter 2. I was walking in Stanford Shopping Center a few years ago behind yet another charming young man smoking a cigarette. This charming young man was actually not young, had more tattoos than most NBA players, and was definitively educated through at least 7th grade, if not even further. The wind was hitting his smoke at such an angle that an Olympic archer could not have projected it any better into my face, so of course I had to fake cough. If I may interject here, by the way, that smokers, when faced with an obnoxious brat such as myself, should take the high road and ignore it. Unfortunately, almost every one I have come into contact with is far too clever to be outfoxed, and has used the unique move of blowing their smoke into my face. This is what our friend from Encounter 1 did, and this is what our newest friend did as well. The coughing vs. smoke blowing routine continued for a few more seconds, and there may have been some preliminary banter, but all I remember is what he finally said: "Do you want a knuckle sandwich?" Are you kidding? Are you six years old? The moral of this story is if you are old enough to be smoking, you have to be old enough to not use terms like "knuckle sandwich" when dealing with snotty kids who don't enjoy inhaling enough smoke to set off an alarm.

Encounter 3. Yeah, there isn't really another good story. Biking home today I saw someone in their car smoking and it blew out the window and into my face. Because I have nothing better to do, I've been annoyed about it for the past three hours, and this post is the consequence. I guess the moral of this encounter is don't blow smoke out the window of your car. If the smell is unpleasant enough that you don't want it in your car, then what the hell makes you think anyone outside your car wants it around them, either?

The blog may have assumed a slightly edgy tone today. My apologies. A few bookkeeping notes- 1) Those of you who have asked if there is ever going to be a positive movie review here should stay tuned for my highly anticipated (by me) 5-part Oscar preview, coming in the week building up to the awards ceremony. 2) There will be several Super Bowl pieces coming in the next week and a half, both for those of you who know a little something about football and for those of you who watch only because if you don't, you might miss the guy getting hurt and the ad break starting early. 3) BECOME A FOLLOWER. Come on now, I promise it won't hurt you. Click "follow" in the top right, and enter/create some account information. Guaranteed no more than one minute, and you won't receive any e-mail notifications about new blog posts, it really is just a vote of confidence. 4) Not that this has been heeded the last ten times I've said it, but if any post strikes a chord with you particularly and you think you know others that may enjoy it, by all means pass this link on ("by all means" is code for "please, please, please"). Thanks!

Get Your Dead Babies Off My Lawn

Yesterday, I was biking through the heart of Stanford campus when I passed by a political demonstration on what is usually an empty and aesthetically pleasing lawn. The demonstrator(s) had planted 490 crude fake roses in the lawn, with each one representing 1,000 "babies" "killed" since Roe v. Wade, or something like that. While the point of this post is not to indoctrinate anyone with my view on abortion, suffice it to say that I would undoubtedly fall into the "baby-killer" category. Regardless of your views on abortion, one thing that everyone can agree on is that abortion is one of the most polarizing issues that confronts our society today. Almost everyone has a view on it, and most of those views are well-ingrained and unlikely to change.

This being said, what is the purpose of a demonstration like the one I witnessed yesterday? It is highly unlikely that any supporters of the Roe v. Wade decision passed by, saw the number of roses, and suddenly changed their minds. Rather, most people who favor abortion have weighed the merits of either case and decided that they don't believe life starts immediately after conception, therefore being unaffected by references to the killing of what are mostly first-trimester fetuses.

So, if pro-abortion people aren't going to change their minds thanks to the demonstration, then why hold it at all? Well, maybe to make a statement, but there are better ways of doing that that don't involve directly inserting yourself into other people's lives, like writing it on Facebook or on an extremely well-written blog. Most likely, the only real consequence of the demonstration is to push people even further towards the extremes of either side of the issue by bringing it up in a public location where it is essentially impossible not to view and react to in either passionate support or outrage.

If we take this to be the only real effect of such a demonstration, then it needs to go and never come back. Sensationalizing such a large-scale issue will only impede progress towards compromise, a place that our lawmakers are willing to go less and less these days. It is one thing to civilly argue over a political issue with a friend or acquaintance, it is another to go way out of your way to impress your beliefs on others. In America today, our biggest problem in the political arena is the failure of our political parties to hear one another out. Progress can't be made without compromise, and compromise can't be made when everyone is busy getting all riled up over some demonstration or speech or protest. So, while I understand it may be hard for you to stomach that I am a "baby-killer", it is equally hard for me to stomach that you support taking away a woman's right to decide if she's prepared to endure pregnancy and labor. But the only way we're going to come anywhere closer to a solution that makes us both somewhat satisfied is if you put away the fake roses and start to approach the problem without getting us both inflamed and unable to deal with one another. Because that's simply not helping anyone.



Again, while I tried to stay away from too much partisanship on this post, any opposing viewpoints are welcome in the comments section. Also, REMEMBER TO BECOME A FOLLOWER. All you need to do is hit the "follow" button in the top right corner, enter one of several accounts or create one in a mere 20-30 seconds, and then hit follow again. There is no sort of e-mail or other solicitation attached to becoming a follower, it just lets me know that you're reading it. And again, please pass on this link if you enjoy it and know others who would as well. Thanks!

Cheers!

Just a short, random one today. A quick guide to buying drinks:

Bottled water: Somewhere, a woman named Crystal Geyser is laughing as she fills up bottles in her kitchen sink.

Carbonated water: Bottled water, except the company saved a few drops of water by pumping it with a little extra air.

Milk: This comes from the breast of a cow. Did anyone ever think about that? From the breast of a cow. The breast.

Coke: Not only does it taste quite a bit like "Red Dye 51", it is also the nutritional equivalent of eating 8 spoonfuls of sugar, with two more spoonfuls for dessert.

Wine: Tastes like s***, but if you know which ones are "fruity" and which ones are "dry", you are instantly 2-3 times classier and more likely to be stoned to death by people at nearby tables.

Beer: As far as I'm concerned, should be evaluated solely based on quality of the commercials. That means Coors Light is garbage, but Dos Equis is a quality choice.

Coffee: Awesome if you like drinks that taste bad and are highly addictive, thus costing you 4-5 dollars a day at your local Starbucks (conveniently located no more than three blocks away from your other local Starbucks!) In other words, not awesome at all.

Dr. Pepper: The taste of greatness.

Very short today, but hopefully enjoyable. Again, remember to become a follower (top right corner, just click the button and sign up if you don't have one of those accounts) and pass along this link to anyone you think might be interested. Thanks!

OMG! CELEBRITY GOSSIP!

If you have traveled recently, or for any other reason been at a newsstand, you have probably seen all of America's magazines displayed in all their glory. If you are like me, and took two seconds to look at them and realize that this week THERE IS AN US WEEKLY SPECIAL EDITION COLLECTIBLE JUSTIN BIEBER ISSUE, you can see that our magazines are a sad reflection of where we are as a culture. Because magazines' first priority is to get you to buy them, which is done principally by hooking you with a cover photo, magazine covers are an excellent indication on what's selling in America today. It's not pretty. The magazines that are most heavily advertised in newsstands are the gossip sources such as People, Star, and Us Weekly. Here are a few sample headlines from these magazines, and an explanation of why this is what is being consumed by Americans:

"Random person you don't know lost 150 pounds! Omg!": This is a big one, particularly at People magazine. The alternate headline for issues such as these is "Absolutely nothing happened to any celebrity this week. Like, nothing.", but that doesn't have the same ring to it. The reason that an issue like this flies off the shelf is that, as of the most recent census, the average American weighs 645 pounds, and therefore can identify with the whale-women on the cover.

"Star Weekly Exclusive: Angelina Jolie Bears All": I'll save you some time- she's not going to "bear all". Really what happened is that, after being followed for seven straight days by an extremely creepy and possibly deranged Star magazine reporter, Angelina agreed to answer one to four questions, the most revealing of which is "What is your middle name?". Americans who believe they will someday be movie stars like Angelina Jolie, or will have plastic surgery to look like her and then have octuplets and be in Star Weekly themselves, are eager to purchase this issue.

"Katie and Tom- Escape to Cancun!": The usual headline in Us or People. These magazines make two curious assumptions- one, that you are on such friendly terms with celebrities that your relationship is carried out on a strictly first-name basis, and two, that you actually care where they just went on vacation. Fortunately, there is a huge quantity of Americans who fervently adhere to both of these terms, such as unnamed members of my family. To them, it is absolutely essential to know what an actress who you have never actually seen in a movie is planning on naming her third child, if she ever gets married and has two other children first. (No celebrity would ever divulge this kind of classified information to a gossip magazine, but if they did, it would make a great front-page story).

Anyway, the moral of this story is simple- please don't read these magazines. It's really killing the classiness of American culture (although that sort of looks like an oxymoron now that I've written it out). But don't. Please.

That's all for today. Super Bowl and Oscar previews and analysis are coming very soon. Remember to become a follower! Click the button labeled "follow" in the top right corner- I promise you won't be hassled with any sort of e-mail or Facebook notification. Also, I encourage you to pass on this link to anyone you know who might enjoy it. Thanks!

What's Killing Women's Tennis

The Australian Open started a few days ago, but the odds aren't good that you are aware of this fact. The odds are even worse than you are aware that there is a women's draw, since women's tennis is slowly dying, at least as far as I can tell. Here's what's killing it:

1) The grunting:
Oh. My. God. A women's tennis match these days sounds like both players are not only hitting backhands but also having twins. If you intend to do anything else while you watch, such as "think", forget it. One of the more comical viewing experiences in sports is listening to women's tennis announcers attempt to yell commentary over the grunts, which are the decibel equivalent of a wildebeest stampede. There need to be new rules, ASAP, that put limits on grunting.

2) The players:
Besides the Williams sisters, who are household names but tend to find hosting their own QVC show preferable to playing in tennis tournaments (actually), there are a grand total of zero recognizable players. Number 1 Caroline Wozniacki has a 1000% greater chance of getting famous as a model than as a tennis player. Seriously, look at her. Damn. Anyway, the influx of Eastern European talent with names like Yevcnisknehwecnwidkfnenko is not helping TV ratings. The women's tour needs to make a conscious effort to create some star power, or it is not going to be worth watching much longer.

3) HOLY CRAP WHAT IS VENUS WILLIAMS WEARING!??!!?
Yeah, this isn't helping women's tennis either. If I turn my TV on and see this, I'm grabbing for the remote at speeds I never before thought possible. Just wear some normal clothes, and play the game. Wearing a size "Youth Extra Small" dress robs attention from some of the finer points of the match, such as the "playing tennis" aspect.

Bang. Take my three suggestions to fix each of these problems, and women's tennis is back on the up and up. Add "women's tennis tour commissioner" to my list of quickly accumulating possible jobs, along with "film producer" and "king of the world".

Remember, become a blog follower! I mean it, you need to do it right now. Click the follow button above and to the right. There will be no e-mail or other notifications of any kind, it basically is just a vote of confidence. If you don't have one of the plethora of usable accounts, it should take no more than 15-20 seconds to sign up. Also, I am still wide open to suggestions of what to write about in the Oracle. Keep them coming. Thanks!

Armed and Dangerous?

In the wake of the shooting in Tuscon, many have called for the government to take a good hard look at revising some gun control laws. The Tea Party, among other conservative groups, has responded by saying that the "community needs some time to pass and people to heal before we start this type of political dialogue". Pish-posh. There is no time better than now, with a gun-related tragedy fresh in the mind of the public, to bring a long-overdue and not fully addressed issue to the forefront of the political conversation.

It's no coincidence that the Giffords assassination attempt occurred in Arizona- it is one of three states that allow citizens to carry a gun without a permit. How this is legal is beyond me, but just sit back and consider that for a second. That means anyone in Arizona without some sort of egregious criminal background can own and use a firearm legally. I don't know about you, but I don't trust every single citizen in Arizona. Every so often someone with mental problems, like Jared Lee Loughner, is going to get their hands on a gun and do something stupid. It's up to the government to protect its citizens, and that means taking no-brainer measures to prevent the more unstable members of society from shooting up a bunch of passersby on a whim.

There are some commonly used arguments for gun rights, and I will address them briefly:

1) The Second Amendment.
Come on, don't be ridiculous. The Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) were written over 200 years ago and we don't need to keep glorifying them as some sort of magical formula that should govern our lives on a daily basis. Society evolves, and laws should do the same. Plus, the Second Amendment was written in a time when guns were not nearly as powerful and dangerous as they are today. The Second Amendment was probably intended to enable the United States to quickly assemble armed and ready militias in the case of attack. Sorry, but there hasn't been a foreign invasion in... ever. It's time for you to go, Second Amendment.

2) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
No, people with guns kill people. Half of that equation is people, which is pretty hard to eliminate. The other half, however, is definitely guns, and those can and should be controlled. Yes, if gun control were enforced, gang members and others would still be able to obtain guns on the black market. There is, however, a great deal of gun-related violence that occurs solely because it is so easy to get a gun legally. Just today, for instance, a 14-year-old shot his father and great-aunt dead with a gun he was given for his birthday. Tell me that making it harder or impossible to get a gun wouldn't have prevented that kid from killing two people and I'll laugh in your face.

3) Practical uses of guns
The first of these uses would be protection. Hmm, if you impose strict gun control, and almost nobody owns a gun, then what do you need to protect yourself from that is so dangerous it necessitates possession of a firearm? Another would be hunting, which could very easily be controlled by allowing licensed hunting ranges to rent out guns for use on their property, which would allow hunting to continue unimpeded without spreading guns among the community. This doesn't control for the chance shooting of a hunting partner by certain vice presidents, but other than that it seems pretty foolproof. That should be it for practical uses, unless you include "shooting terrorists", which I don't.

To wrap up my case, here are a few statistics. Having a gun in a home increases the likelihood of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 because of the easy accessibility of a means of killing oneself. There is a yearly average of 200 legal uses of firearms as self defense, while each year there are 30,000 gun-related deaths, which is a striking figure that shows how much more frequently guns are used offensively rather than defensively. How can these numbers and some very straightforward and hard-to-counter arguments (covered above) not incur stricter gun regulation? Beats me.

I realize that today's entry was politically charged, and I am open to comments from opposite viewpoints. Two customary reminders- 1) become a follower!!!!! (Click the follow button in the top right- no e-mail or Facebook notifications involved, I promise). If you already are, and you enjoy the blog, share it with your friends and family. 2) Any suggestions for what I should write about in an Oracle guest column are highly appreciated. There is a comments area just below this post. Thanks!

Blockbusting

2011 is looking like it's going to be a long year for movies. So far this year, there have been a grand total of zero things released that are even slightly worth seeing, which didn't stop me from attending "The Dilemma" last night. I was actually against all odds pleasantly surprised, as it took through well over half of the movie for me to begin to want to stick pins in my eyes, instead of the twenty minutes I anticipated. While it is not exactly "Citizen Kane", "The Dilemma" is probably the cream of the crop of recent releases, as well as those coming in the near future. Here is a sample:

The Green Hornet: Whoever had the idea of casting Seth Rogen as the star of a non-comedic superhero movie is probably the same person who thought turning Yogi Bear into a movie was Hollywood gold. Rogen should be where he belongs, sitting around smoking pot and discussing sex with a bunch of other schmoes. Unless the Green Hornet is a rare new breed of superhero, I am guessing that is not what happens in this movie, which automatically makes it not worth seeing.

Season of the Witch: Already covered once in this blog, but provides material enough for three to four entries. The words "starring Nicolas Cage" would likely have doomed this movie regardless, but this is one Meryl Streep couldn't have saved. A movie like Season of the Witch makes me want to defecate on a piece of paper, send it to Relativity Media (the production company), and see if they use it as a script for the next Nicolas Cage feature.

Country Strong: This movie appeals to two demographics- young to middle-aged women who believe they identify in some ridiculous way with the main character, and people like me who enjoy making fun of terrible movies. Again, there is an inexplicable casting decision, this time to have English actress Gwyneth Paltrow play the good ol' Southern girl main character. Come on, movie execs- just admit it's going to be a bad movie, cut your losses, and cast aspiring actress and actual singer Taylor Swift as the lead, thereby guaranteeing millions of teenage girls will see it, and move on.

No Strings Attached: Shifting into the not released yet category, we have No Strings Attached, which probably opens this Friday, although no one cares. The movie does promise to confirm my long held suspicion that Ashton Kutcher still exists, but other than that, it is unlikely to be watchable. See it only if Natalie Portman is your current celebrity crush (so, about half of the country's population of young males).

The Mechanic: Opening in two weeks, The Mechanic stars Jason Statham shooting people. Wait, this movie has been made five times before-it's been called "Crank", "Crank 2", "Transporter", "Transporter 2", and "Transporter 3". Statham is right up there with Nicolas Cage on the list of actors who had one or two good movies but generally are in things that are nauseatingly bad. Please don't see this movie. Spend some time playing with your dog or on your computer or banging your head against a wall or something, anything. Just not this.

The Rite: The Rite is set for release on the same day as The Mechanic in what is shaping up to be a real mega-weekend. The Rite stars Anthony Hopkins as Anthony Hopkins, really creepy guy. This movie has also already been made several times, most successfully as "Silence of the Lambs" and less successfully in films such as "The Wolfman". The Rite will be worth seeing for all those who have already played with their dogs and computers, banged their heads against a wall, and seen The Mechanic. Everyone else should stay far, far away.

That's that. How do I not have a job in Hollywood yet with such a keen eye for film? Anyway, two final reminders- 1) BECOME A FOLLOWER (caps are necessary as I completely omitted this reminder from my last post). Just click "Follow" in the top right, and you will give me your vote of confidence- no annoying e-mail reminders involved. 2) I have been asked and have agreed to write a guest column in The Oracle. Any and all ideas for topics for the column are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Stars Realign

If you are an avid follower of your daily horoscope (popularly known as "weird"), you have no doubt heard of the changing of the zodiac. While I remain a Virgo- yes, yes, very clever, I hear you laughing- many horoscope readers are struggling with the monumental difficulty of having to adopt to a new sign.

How will we cope? Someone who has spent their waking years pursuing the life of a bull (Taurus) has now discovered that their whole life to this point has been a lie. Instead, they should have been focused on living like a twin (Gemini). Or something. I don't really know how these signs work.

Which leads me to my conspiracy theory- the change in the zodiac was made for the sole purpose of reminding people that it still does, in fact, exist. Doesn't that make sense? How else can interest be generated in horoscopes and whatever other zodiac-related material is out there for consumption?

The zodiac has all of a sudden been shot into the limelight, with particular attention going to the inclusion of a new sign, "Ophiuchus", which sounds more like a variety of phlegm than a constellation. One can only assume that the Chinese calendar will be edited in the near future to make next year the "Year of the Zebra" or some such animal. I can't complain too much, though- my horoscope told me I'd have a happy day.

NFL Playoff Preview (Week 2)

Seahawks at Bears
The Seahawks look to build on their monumental upset of the Saints by beating the Bears and making the entire nation of football observers look like idiots for writing them off. Well, I will not be fooled. I'm picking the Seahawks to win this game and ride into next weekend with a home game against the Packers with the Super Bowl on the line. I expect Matt Hasselbeck to get the job done one more time before calling it quits and collecting on his social security checks. Jay Cutler will do his best Rex Grossman impression, and the Bears offense will never get going. Seahawks 31, Bears 20.

Ravens at Steelers
On paper, it would seem that the Steelers are better in just about every facet of the game, except hairstyle (sorry, Troy Polamalu, but it's time to rediscover the "barber shop"). It's also worth mentioning that their quarterback IS A RAPIST. Not that that's worth anything when compared with atrocities such as running a dog-fighting ring, but surely people must at least still remember it. No? Really? OK, well I do, and I can't in good conscience pick Ben to win this game. In addition, I actually believe the aging Ravens defense will pull up one more great game to beat their arch rivals and ride a wave of momentum into next week's absolute mauling at the hands of the Patriots. Ravens 16, Steelers 10.

Jets at Patriots
Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie, who has more children (nine) and more accompanying baby mamas (eight) than interceptions (three), has made the news this week for calling out Tom Brady in a rant filled with more expletives than at LEAST 30 seconds of a Lil' Wayne song. While the outcome of this game was never in question, Cromartie quickly sealed his fate as the goat of the game. Brady will come after him early and often, stopping only to comb his hair and wonder if he is coming closer to his life goal of someday looking like Justin Bieber. Rex Ryan will be wishing he were somewhere else, such as admiring his wife's feet, very soon after the start of the game. Patriots 45, Jets 13.

Packers at Falcons
The Falcons aren't the sexiest of teams, but they've gotten the job done all year. The Packers are very sexy, at least if you're looking at Clay Matthews from behind, but have had a more up and down season. The big question here is which Packers team will show up- the one that tore out the Giants' hearts and stomped on them in Week 16, or the one that put up 13 points in a loss to the Washington Redskins (yes, those Washington Redskins). I am willing to gamble it will be the former, if for no other reason that I really want to see the Seahawks hosting the NFC Championship game in the single most ridiculous plot twist in recent sports history, and that can only happen if the Packers win this game. Packers 27, Falcons 24.

That's that for the Week 2 preview. Sorry to those who aren't football fans, there shouldn't be any more sports-related material for over a week. Two reminders: 1) BECOME A FOLLOWER (just click the follow button in the top right), and 2) I've been invited to write a guest column in the Oracle. If you have any ideas for the subject, please let me know!

Party of Dunces

First of all, a sincere and heartfelt "stay strong" to the Palo Alto community. It is unbelievably tragic that we are still suffering through this and I realize that this is hitting everyone very hard. I'm very sorry to those of you who lost a friend today and I'm here for you just like everyone else is.

I was going to write something serious about gun rights today, but I'm going to save it for now and do something lighter, an early preview of the Republican presidential field. Hopefully this will be a pick-me-up for at least a few people.

MITT ROMNEY (former governor, Massachusetts)
Upside: Somewhat good looking; oozing in slightly less slime than most Republican candidates; has quite a bit of money to mask the fact that he is a terrible politician

Downside: Is a terrible politician; is Mormon, which creates a problem with the "I'd rather vote for a used pizza box than someone who doesn't believe in 'my God'" demographic

SARAH PALIN (former governor, Alaska)
Upside: Somewhat good looking; very popular among Americans whose IQ's have been known to top out at 24.5

Downside: "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies"- Sarah Palin, 2010. Need I say more? Yes? How about "They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan"- Sarah Palin, 2008. One only hopes Sarah Palin will be shipped to our neighboring country of Antarctica.

NEWT GINGRICH (former Speaker of the House, Georgia (6th district))
Upside: Teaching stint at famed University of West Georgia certainly can't earn him an 'elitist' label; only one of the front-runners who has ever worked in Washington

Downside: Looks quite a bit like an actual newt; oh yeah, and he really fixed the problem with a last name like "Gingrich", right?

MIKE HUCKABEE (former governor, Arkansas)
Upside: Very popular among the "IQ of 24.5 or less" demographic that hasn't hopped on the Palin bandwagon yet; has his own Fox News show, so he's reaching a very diverse audience of die-hard Republicans and bored Democrats who are watching to see which will be the daily Fox News clip of wisdom used in the Daily Show and the Colbert Report

Downside: Actually a member of the "IQ of 24.5 or less" demographic himself; probably didn't take great strides in securing the Jewish vote when he compared his personal quest to lose weight with the experience of a concentration camp inmate

HERMAN CAIN (pizza mogul. really.)
Upside: Confirms the long-standing and up until now, unproven, hypothesis of many investigators that there were, in fact, African-American Republicans; umm.. hmm. People like pizza, right?

Downside: Herman who?; while this may be a controversial statement, I am not convinced that running a little-known pizza company provides sufficient experience to assume the position of "leader of the free world". I'm probably wrong though. Don't quote me on that one.

Well, that's that. Anyone not looking forward to a Palin-Huckabee-pizza guy debate? Didn't think so.

Check back tomorrow for (probably) a preview of this weekend's NFL games. Remember, become a blog follower!!! Just click "follow" on the top right- you will not receive any sort of e-mail or Facebook notifications if you do. It's basically a vote of confidence. As a last note, I will be writing a guest column for the next issue of the Oracle. If anyone has an idea for what it should be about, let me know! Thanks!

Parenting Tips from a Non-Parent

Before I begin, a quick note- this post will be less humorous and also will touch on racial stereotypes, so I apologize in advance. I tried to be delicate. There was a comment a few blogs ago with a link to this article.

I read it top to bottom in five minutes because I found it very interesting, and recommend you do the same, but if you don't feel like it, here's a basic summary: the author, Yale law professor Amy Chua, who is Chinese-American, outlines why she believes that the "Chinese method" of parenting is superior to the "Western method" of parenting. She outlines three fundamental differences: 1) that Chinese mothers are far less concerned about their child's self esteem than Western mothers; 2) that Chinese mothers believe their children are permanently indebted to them; 3) that Chinese mothers believe they know their child's interests better than their children. While Chua does make the clarification that there is certainly some fluidity in the system and that some Chinese mothers behave more like Westerners and visa versa, she makes clear her belief that generally the racial distinction holds true.

A quick scan of the comments page reveals that the vast majority of readers, who are probably white and were brought up by "Western" mothers, are appalled. There are certainly an array of comments that could immediately disqualify the views presented in some people's minds- to name two, Chua's list of things her children were never allowed to do, which include have a playdate, choose their own extracurriculars, and not be the number one student in any subject other than gym or drama, and a story she gives of a time when she forced her daughter to sit at a piano for hours without breaks for bathroom, food, or drink, until she correctly played her piano piece. Clearly, this is extreme, but there is very little arguing with the results Chua as obtained from her own daughters. (Or at least, how they are presented in the story. It is completely possible they are actually meth addicts whose lone aspiration is to start a metal band called "Vagina Lotion".)

The real snag in the reasoning of the piece, however, is Chua's failure to realize that hers is not the typical family situation. She and her husband are both Yale employees, and their children are predictably gifted. However, not every Chinese mother is working with the same gene pool as she is. Her insistence that the failure of a child comes not from some sort of natural inability but from a parent's lack of pushing is simply not true. Some students simply achieve at higher levels than others for no other reason than their inherent traits, and no amount of parental pushiness can change that. Perhaps in the case of the author, it can, but her experiences should not be judged as the norm. What she preaches could quite possibly lead to some crazy parents expecting that, with the right level of drilling and strict regimenting, their child can, too, become the class valedictorian. That is not how the world works, and it never will be.

Before completely disqualifying all of the article, however, it is worth noting that while the "Chinese mother" presented in the piece is imperfect, there are ideas that are very applicable in a less extreme parenting philosophy. For instance, her suggestion that Western mothers worry excessively about the self-esteem of their child is spot-on. A child never learns to fail if their parent is too over-protective, so that when later in life they do, inevitably, fall, they fall flat on their face and find it hard to dig themselves up. Instilling an attitude of not easily giving up rather than one that expects to either defeat something easily or not try it at all is a goal all parents should aspire to. Additionally, there is a middle ground between the "let your kid decide at the age of six that he wants to be a firefighter and spend thousands of dollars investing in that future" philosophy and Chua's "decide whether you want your kid to be an investment banker or a pretentious Yale law school professor some time during your second trimester, at the latest, and then stick to it" philosophy. A child needs a degree of guidance, but ultimately it should be the child's decision, not the parents', what activities they choose to pursue. And that is where Chua misses the point the most- a child is not a second life for you to do what you wish you could have with your youth, it is the first, and only life, for someone you should care about the most.

Sorry for that serious and almost completely humor-free post. Tomorrow/Friday's summary of what I've learned in this brilliant five months called a "semester" should be a bit lighter. Of course, don't forget to follow! It's the big button that says "follow" just below and to the right of the blog title.

Retitled

Just a quickie today. I was thinking recently that titles need to do a better job of explaining the content that lies after them. So, without further ado, here is some re-titling I have done.

Jon and Kate plus Eight: "Watch Jon and Kate's marital problems play out on national television in front of their plentiful and painfully oblivious offspring"

A Tale of Two Cities: "A tale that quite possibly might involve two cities, but, frankly, it is rather hard to tell between all of the twenty-page-long descriptions of shoes and walls and such"

America's Funniest Home Videos: "America's Home Videos of fat people hurting their genitals and small children falling over"

Dancing With the Stars: "Dancing with people who you would not recognize if you had met them the day before, but may at one time have been married to or related to someone who once appeared in a movie"

Who Wants to be a Millionaire?: "Who wants to win about 32,000 dollars, fool themselves into thinking they can answer the next question, phone their friend, who is even dumber than them, and lose all their money?"

Harry Potter and [insert ending here]: "Harry Potter discovers that basically everything that could possibly happen to him within the realm of possibility has already happened, so J.K. Rowling makes up a new magical creature or spell so that she can make a few more million dollars off of her loyal followers, who would probably read a Harry Potter book if it were just 1000 pages of obscenities repeated over and over"

Gran Torino: "Clint Eastwood owns a Gran Torino, and a bunch of other stuff happens, although it is very hard to care since the acting is worse than that in a 3rd grade after-school play"

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: "Yep. This actually is a movie about a guy who goes around killing people with a chainsaw, and that's it. Audiences pay to see it. Really. It's 'good entertainment'."

Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?: "While you are almost certainly smarter than a 5th grader, we guarantee that the contestants are not, because we specifically choose idiots in order to turn this ridiculous premise into a watchable show"

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings: "I may or may not know why the caged bird sings, but I'm sure as hell not going to tell you for at least 200 pages so that you have to read through my whole life story before you find out"

That's all for today. Check back Wednesday for a longer post. Don't forget to become a follower by clicking the "follow" button in the top right part of the page!

What I Need to Know (and more)

I will start this post with an apology, as promised to my cousin in Seattle. As proven by Saturday's upset win, I was very wrong about the Seahawks. Their quarterback should not chiefly be labeled as "AARP-eligible", nor should their division be referred to as one "so bad that a team composed of myself and the Jersey Shore cast would be strong favorites to win it." In fact, I pronounce the Seahawks this year's Super Bowl favorites, and a new power in football for years to come. Alright, enough of that.

There needs to be a limit on what can and can't be posted on Facebook. If you feel like taking the "what color are your eyes?" quiz on Facebook, then that is good for you. A bit sad, but good for you. However, I DO NOT NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOUR RESULTS WERE. First of all, this is the stupidest quiz of all time, because if you need to know what color your eyes are, you can go look in-wait for it- a mirror. Yes, these have been invented. If you still feel the need to take the quiz, be my guest. Just don't tell me about it on my News Feed. Yes, yes, I know what you're thinking. Not all Facebook quizzes are like that. Some concern matters of pressing national security, such as "what Harry Potter character are you"? Sorry, but that doesn't matter to me either. I am fairly certain, in fact, that you are not a Harry Potter character, since Harry Potter does not exist. And stop sending me ridiculous requests, too. If I cared how you were doing in Mafia Wars, I would ask. I don't need to know that you just leveled up, or whatever it is one does in Mafia Wars, and were wondering if I was interested in joining your team. I'm not. So cut it out. Facebook activity should be limited to the distribution of somewhat interesting information, such as what you are doing, what the status of your love life is, and if you have written a truly excellent blog post that you are generous enough to share with others.

It is bad enough that there is a basic cable channel called Home and Garden Televison. What is worse, though, is the programming that is shown on such a channel. I speak from firsthand experience, as someone with a sister whom, out of the literally millions of entertainment options available to her at any given moment, chooses not only to watch but to deliberately TAPE shows on HGTV. Here is a guide to some choice HGTV programming:

House Hunters: One or two people who have decided that they prefer being on TV for 20 minutes to buying a decent house appear in each episode. The episode begins by an incredibly exaggerated "first" meeting between the prospective buyer(s) and a real estate agent. The agent then takes them to the first of three houses/apartments. The buyers enter the house with the mandatory exclamation of "WOWWWW". However, they will invariably find a fault in the house, because if it were too perfect no one would watch the rest of the show to find out which house the buyer chooses. The agent will take the buyer through a tour of the house in which they highlight every excruciatingly small detail of the house's design, layout, and features. Then, there will be a commercial break during which the only things advertised are clearly second-rate household appliances. Upon return from the break, the buyer is taken to the second house, where the process is repeated. Another commercial break then occurs, followed by a third house. After being shown all three houses, the buyer is literally forced to choose one of the three houses to purchase. After building the tension, the buyer will announce which home they have chosen, almost always the worst one they have been shown. This is the end of the show.

House Hunters International: The same as House Hunters, but not in the United States. Obviously, this show requires a different title from House Hunters.

House Hunters: Million Dollar Homes: The same as House Hunters, except the person purchasing the house is richer. Also, it is more creatively titled than House Hunters.

House Hunters' Guide to House Hunting: The same as House Hunters, except instead of showing someone buying a house, it's an instructive documentary that has compiled all of the episodes of House Hunters to show you how to buy a house. If you are in the market for a new house, stop all other preparation and watch House Hunters' Guide to House Hunting. This should get you completely, 100% ready for the home-buying process.

Property Virgins: The same as House Hunters, except it is for first time home buyers only. The major benefit of this show from HGTV's point of view is that, if they air it in the middle of the night, they may amass a number of accidental viewers whose search for shows had included the word "virgins".

As you can see, HGTV's success is built on a highly variable but consistently riveting set of programming. That's all for today. Coming soon: a look at other cable favorites of my sister, such as TLC and E! Make sure to check out Friday's post on Nicolas Cage and the SAT, and, most important of all, don't forget to follow! Just press the button on the top right part of the page. Thanks!

Cage Fright and SAT Tricks

The movie review website rottentomatoes.com is an excellent outlet for pretentious people such as myself who believe a movie is not good unless they are told it is by people who are paid to decide such things. Each week at Rotten Tomatoes, the reviews for a recently released movie are compiled, and then the film is given a percentage that indicates how many of the reviews were positive. If you were to make a movie about, say, two cavemen who walk through ancient Europe and attempt to make you laugh without talking about anything besides their feces and genitals, Rotten Tomatoes would still give it a hefty 14%. In fact, this movie has been made. It is called the Year One. Do not see this movie, even if someone puts a gun to your head and tries to force you. Take the gun route. Trust me. Anyhow, a score below 7 or 8 percent is simply unheard of. Into this situation steps Nicolas Cage, who can't believe people are still paying him to "act", but will continue to do it as long as people keep pretending that films such as "National Treasure 2" are quality entertainment. His newest movie, "Season of the Witch" received a Rotten Tomatoes score of (drumroll, please)... 1%!!! One lone critic out of 68, Tom Huddleston of "Time Out", which likely was created by the production crew of Season of the Witch in an attempt to salvage the movie, gave it a positive review. If Huddleston's rave of "creaky, predictable, and frequently idiotic" sounds positive to you, as it did to the Rotten Tomatoes people who sort reviews. The moral of the story is this- if you want to make a movie, there are three categories of actors: 1) good looking actors, 2) talented actors, and 3) Nicolas Cage. No matter what you do, and no matter how tempting it may be, DO NOT EVER, EVER, EVER, attempt to make a movie using a category 3 actor. And if you do, do not try to cover up your mistake by casting as the second lead Ron "Hellboy" Perlman, who actually looks more attractive when his face is red and there are two large bulges in the front of his forehead. By the way, anyone who saw the "Season of the Witch" trailer saw this coming. The most exciting part of the preview, at least for me, was when the words "This Winter" flashed across the screen, and I thought we might be spared until November or December 2011 before being subjected to one of the worst-looking movies ever produced. Well, at least this should keep Cage off the big screen for a whi.... what's that? Ghost Rider 2 is set for release this summer? God help us.

Before I wrap up for today, a dear friend of mine and loyal blog follower has asked me to say a few words on the SAT, which many high schoolers will be taking in just a few weeks. The SAT grades on three categories- reading, writing, or math. Here is everything you need to know to ace each section- free!

Reading: The SAT reading section will test your ability to concentrate for longer than seven seconds while reading about a 16th century Liechtensteinian archduke. It will also test your ability to have nothing better to do in the months preceding the test than sit at home memorizing thousands of completely useless vocabulary words, such as "analgesic". As you can imagine, these are valuable skills to have when it comes to your future career, if your future career is writing about the history of Liechtenstein's royal family in the most complicated and over-exaggerated English possible. The trick to taking the reading section without committing ceremonial hara-kiri is to make sure that the bubbles on your test sheet are arranged in a pattern that is aesthetically agreeable, and then take a 2-hour nap. When you wake up, it will be time to take the writing section of the test.

Writing: In recent years, the SAT people have gotten very clever and decided to add an essay portion to the test in order to make sure they could properly evaluate a student's writing. As you can therefore imagine, the essay is meticulously graded on content, expressiveness, and the subtle nuances of the piece. Gotcha! Had you going there for a second, didn't I? Instead, the grader will check to make sure you have four to five paragraphs and have written something that could broadly be defined as a series of words, and then assign it an arbitrary score on a scale of 1 to 12. The writing section also includes a number of multiple-choice grammar questions. I am very good at this part, so I have nothing bad to say about it. It is pristine.

Math: In an effort to not bias the grading of the math section based on irrelevant factors such as how good one is at math, the SAT writes questions like this: "If the least most smallest greatest factor multiple sum equals 4 greater than 2 less than 5 is 7, then what is x?" Fortunately, the answers often look something like this: "A) a grapefruit, B) the state of Vermont, C) both A and B, or D) 5". While "D" is clearly the logical choice, the SAT also throws in a trap answer: C. The hope here is that students who would rather be outside with their friends, or maybe inside with their friends, or maybe by themselves slowly poking their eyes out with needles, will not be paying close attention and choose "C". Further impeding scores is the fact that the SAT writers are more "liberal artsy" and often get the answers to their own math questions wrong, which can lead to some seriously skewed scores and is the reason George W. Bush went to Yale.

That is all I have for today. Check back tomorrow or Sunday for more riveting material. And remember, if you haven't already, don't leave the page without hitting "follow" in the top right corner. It will take you no more than 30 seconds. There are no strings attached, it's just a vote of confidence. Thanks!

NFL Playoffs for Dummies (Week 1)

I wanted to write a NFL Playoffs Week 1 preview, but certainly didn't want to alienate anyone reading who may not be a non-football fan. The solution: two previews for each game, one for dummies, and one for people who have nothing better to do but follow football in their spare time. I identify with both categories, so I felt I could pull this off. Anyway, here it is. I apologize in advance for some of the weird font sizing- I tried to fix this several times and it would not cooperate.

New Orleans Saints at Seattle Seahawks (Saturday, 1:30 PM Pacific time, NBC)

For Dummies: This is possibly the single worst playoff matchup in recent history. The Seahawks enter the playoffs with a losing record, the first team ever in league history to do so. They have made it thanks to winning the NFC West, a division so bad that a team composed of myself and the Jersey Shore cast would be considered the strong favorites to win it. They are being led into the game by their AARP-eligible quarterback Matt Hasselbeck, who was named the starter today over backup quarterback and Jesus look-a-like Charlie Whitehurst. The Seahawks face the defending world champion Saints, who have cruised through one of the hardest divisions in the league, the NFC South, to enter the playoffs at 11-5. In contrast to the Seahawks, they are led by recently crowned sportsman of the year Drew Brees, who has done an excellent job of pretending that the goal of his career all along was to end up on a terrible team in a hurricane-ravaged city and lead them to an incredible turnaround. The only thing going for the Seahawks in this game is that they are the home team, thanks to some fluky playoff seeding rules. The stadium will be packed with Seattle sports fans, who, upset over losing their basketball team to the mythical wasteland of "Oklahoma City" and essentially losing their baseball team, which would not know how to catch a ball if it jumped up into their glove, will actually be deluded into thinking the Seahawks have a shot at winning this game. They will quickly be proven wrong.

For people who have nothing better to do but follow football in their spare time: The one inescapable catch with dismissing the Seahawks in this game is that the Saints enter the weekend having just placed both Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory on injured reserve. This leaves Reggie Bush as the starter, but it will take no more than three carries for him to remind the coaching staff that he is more low-grade Devin Hester impersonator than NFL starting running back. The next option is Julius Jones, and Sean Payton would rather live in a dumpster for a year than hand the ball off to Julius Jones more than five times. Therefore, everyone in the stadium and their grandmothers will know the Saints are passing on almost every down, and it will not matter. The Seahawks pass defense is ranked 27th in the league, which is not going to cut it against the third ranked passing offense, even if they do not attempt a run play the whole game.

Prediction: Saints 31, Seahawks 7. Matt Hasselbeck shocks the crowd and temporarily wakes up the TV viewing audience by leading the Seahawks down the field for a touchdown on their first drive. The Saints promptly reel off 31 unanswered points to win the game. Pete Carroll attempts to salvage the situation in his post-game press conference by pointing out that he kept the game 10 points closer than he was able to in last year's Stanford-USC game.

New York Jets at Indianapolis Colts (Saturday, 5 PM Pacific time, NBC)

For Dummies: The Jets are the NFL's drama queens. Each week a weird headline surfaces about the Jets, like the recent publicizing of head coach Rex Ryan's foot fetish. Yes, I know. It's weird. They're the Jets. The Jets boast one of the leagues best defenses and a solid running game, led by resurrected, former league leading, running back Ladainian Tomlinson, who was believed to have ceased to exist as recently as last year. Unfortunately, the Jets' passing offense depends on pretty boy quarterback Mark Sanchez, who, despite being very good at melting defenses by batting his long, handsome eyelashes, has not yet learned the finer points of the position, such as "throwing". He will be opposed by star quarterback Peyton Manning, who is the entire Indianapolis Colts team. One time, many moons ago, the Colts attempted a running play, in which the confused running back ran backwards seven yards before giving the ball to Manning, who promptly threw for a touchdown. While the play had good results, it was embarrassing to Colts management and the "running back" was quickly returned to his former role of Peyton Manning's personal shoeshine boy. I may have slightly exaggerated small bits of this summary of the Colts, but it is a good rough idea.

For people who have nothing better to do but follow football in their spare time:
Peyton Manning has, at times, done his very best impression of Eli Manning. That is to say, he stunk. This game will come down to which Manning brother shows up, because even the Jets defense is not going to stop Peyton Manning more than a handful of times if he is on. Don't be surprised, however, if the weak and injury-ravaged Colts defense actually makes Mark Sanchez look like a real NFL quarterback. The difference in this game will be whether Dwight Freeney and the rest of the Colts front seven can slow the Jets run game enough to force the Jets into third and longs, which make Rex Ryan so nervous that he has to go look at feet for a while to calm down.

Prediction: Colts 27, Jets 17. Jets cornerbacks Darrelle Revis and Antonio Cromartie do an admirable job of defending Peyton Manning, but they are mere mortals. Manning takes the game over by the third quarter and leads the Colts to victory. Rex Ryan unleashes his inner John Boehner and cries like a baby at the postgame press conference. Mark Sanchez stops combing his hair for enough time to express his sincere disappointment, then gets over it in time for a date with three supermodels.

Baltimore Ravens at Kansas City Chiefs (Sunday, 10 AM Pacific time, CBS)

For Dummies: The Chiefs are one of the league's big surprises this year, emerging from nowhere to win the AFC West. Despite the fact that their quarterback, Matt Cassel, cannot throw a football more than eight yards, their offense has been surprisingly effective. Much of this is due to running back tandem Thomas Jones and Jamaal Charles, who claim to love splitting playing time as long as the team wins, but have actually secretly been trying to poison each other for months. The Chiefs will host the Ravens, best known for their ferocious defense, anchored by possible murderer and Old Spice spokesman Ray Lewis. Accompanying Lewis on the defense are safety Ed Reed, the league leader in interceptions, and ape-man Haloti Ngata, who has no interceptions but believes they are for sissies, anyway. While he is rarely seen because he is hiding from the defense, Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco has established himself as a favorite for announcers, who like to proclaim that he is "just one step away from being elite". If this is true, I am one step away from becoming British royalty. Flacco is decent, however, and this will be a fun game to watch.

For people who have nothing better to do but follow football in their spare time:
Dwayne Bowe has been torching defenses recently, stopping only briefly to make sure that he did not perform well enough to take my fantasy team to the finals. The Ravens' pass defense has proved surprisingly vulnerable (they rank 21st) this year, while the run defense (5th) is good as
ever. Between this and the fact the Chiefs will probably fall behind fast will leave them leaning on their passing game, which consists of Dwayne Bowe and some homeless people the Chiefs signed so they could pretend they had other receiving options besides Dwayne Bowe. On the other side of the ball, a mediocre Chiefs defense will probably focus on stopping Ray "Fried" Rice and the Raven running game (sorry, but there isn't a whole lot of joke material in the Ravens-Chiefs game). This will leave enough room for Joe Flacco to do what he does best- look longingly downfield, think about how strong his arm is and how open his receivers are, and then throw a two-yard check down to Ray Rice. (Not that I'm bitter about another fantasy receiver of mine, Anquan Boldin, disappearing into thin air in the second half of the season.)

Prediction: Ravens 34, Chiefs 9. A well-anticipated match-up quickly becomes a snore fest after the Ravens tear open a 21-0 lead by the early going of the second quarter. Florida-bound Chiefs offensive coordinator Charlie Weis is suspected of not giving his full effort when he arrives to his press conference in a Hawaiian shirt and swimming trunks. Thomas Jones is found poisoned in the locker room. Jamaal Charles feigns dismay, but emerges from his alleged misery long enough to say he supposes he can just be the starting running back next year.

Green Bay Packers at Philadelphia Eagles (Sunday, 1:30 PM Pacific time, FOX)

For Dummies: This is the most highly anticipated of the four first-round games, highlighted by Eagles starting quarterback Michael Vick. You may remember him as the villain who went to jail after his shocking involvement in underground dog-fighting. He is now more commonly known in football circles as "the guy who did something bad a while ago, but we don't remember because he's really good at running around and sometimes throwing a weird-shaped ball made out of pigskin". Vick has recently made public his wishes to own a pet dog, which is the most ill-advised public relations move for a football star since OJ Simpson attempted to publish his book "If I Did It", in which he outlined how he would have killed his wife if he had been the killer, not that he actually was the killer or anything. Vick will face a stout Packers defense led by NFL sack leader Clay Matthews, who has terrorized offenses this year by using his long blond hair to pretend he is the quarterback's wife, only to sneak up and tackle him for a major loss of yards. If this is really how he does it (it's not), then he is a better actor than Nicholas Cage (he probably is anyway). Meanwhile, the Packers offense is led by quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who spent years as the backup to Brett Favre before becoming a star in his own right. While Rodgers has not yet proven to be as good at sexting as Favre, he is developing well in the quarterback part of the job. He will likely pose a problem for the Eagles defense, which has suffered more injuries this year than Dick Cheney's hunting companions.

For people who have nothing better to do but follow football in their spare time: The Packers surprisingly close 10-3 Week 17 victory over the Bears leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth, given that the Packers were playing for their lives while the Bears were more interested in playing the team-wide game of "spot the hottest female fan" than actual football. The Packers continue to compete with the Colts in the "who can blatantly avoid running the ball and still win games" contest, which makes it pretty easy for an Eagles defense that has a number of play-makers, such as Asante Samuel, to prepare for this game. On the flip side, the Eagles offense can beat you any way they want to, which makes for an interesting match-up with the Packers defense, which is among the best in the league. Anyone who has played Madden 2004, though, knows that no matter how good the defense is, you can't stop an offense when they put the ball in Michael Vick's hands. If Andy Reid can stop eating and comically misusing challenges long enough to pay attention to play-calling, the Eagles will be almost impossible to stop.

Prediction: Eagles 27, Packers 24. This will be hardest-fought of the four games, but in the end, the Eagles defense comes up with a surprising stop to seal the win. An Eagles victory brings us one game closer to an NFC Championship game featuring Michael Vick's return to Atlanta, which has executives at FOX knee-deep in their own drool just thinking about it. Aaron Rodgers' frustration turns to confusion when he checks his cell phone after the game and sees an apologetic sext from his old teammate Brett Favre.

Well, that's that. I hope even if you weren't a football fan you were able to get some enjoyment out of that, although I doubt it. This was a very long post, so if you are still reading you should DEFINITELY be a follower- just click the button on the top right and hang in there for the 30 seconds (maximum) worth of sign-up. More posts coming soon, although they will be shorter and more focused on general interest topics. I promise.

Rants

"Out of the darkness comes light"- Anonymous ( which means someone, likely unemployed, who had nothing to do except sit around all day and think of somewhat wise-sounding "proverbs")

The reason I begin with this quote is that a ray of light has begun to peek through the clouds. What seemed before like a hopeless situation has now become only mildly revolting. Someone named Moomoo, or something like that (I'm not great with names) was in charge of selling my dad our soon-to-arrive Subaru. To my great dismay, however, Moomoo has recently gone missing and has been unable to wrap up the sale of the Wondermobile, which jeopardizes my chances of someday laying a partial ownership claim to my very own Subaru. As you can imagine, this put me in quite a bad mood, but my father interrupted my wallowing in Subaru-less self pity to ask me to look up their phone number. Upon Googling the dealership, I discovered it was shared with Hyundai and Isuzu. Isuzu? Makes you glad my dad didn't spend too much more time at the dealership, or he likely would have decided on an Isuzu, whose name is synonymous with "car driven by an unsuccessful accountant who speaks in a monotone". As you have likely deduced by now, though my father is not an unsuccessful accountant who speaks in a monotone, he shares their unique taste in cars, and I can give a 78% guarantee that had Moomoo not wrapped him up in the delights offered by a Subaru, I would be entering into some dandy dinner conversations about whether we preferred a puke-yellow or mucus-green colored Isuzu. Anyhow, while the Subaru purchase seems like a certainty, I now am clinging to a small beam of hope.

I have been asked by a math classmate to say a few words about our textbook. Let me start by saying that if you are ever in a good mood that you feel like ruining, locate the nearest "Shanks" math textbook (whoever gives you one is a sadist) and open it to any page. The nausea you feel is normal, don't worry. In most math textbooks, you are taught the material you need to know in the most boring, mind-numbing way possible. What is so great about Shanks and his boys is that they teach you nothing about the material you need to know but plenty about how to implement "Theorem 4-13", which they made up that morning. Shanks doesn't want to be too much of a rebel, though, so he will also do his thing in the most boring, mind-numbing way possible. As a beginner example, imagine the lesson is about how to calculate the area of a square. Instead of saying, "Here are a bunch of side lengths of squares, go spend the next 5 hours finding their areas", Shanks says, "Here are a bunch of different-sized circles. Go spend the next 5 hours figuring out what the hell these circles have to do with squares. Nothing, right? Well, now glance back at page 215, where Theorem 4-13 clearly illustrates the significance of the circles in our knowledge of squares. Now spend another 5 hours redoing all the problems."
Ohhhh Shanks, you clever dog! I'm glad I learned so much about the relationship between circles and squares from Theorem 4-13! What would I do without you? Spend half as much time learning the actual material I need to know for the test? What fun would that be? Thanks, Shanks!

The internet is killing the news cycle. Yahoo! is bad enough, what with the most globally significant of any of their eight headlines at any given time reading something like "Man makes fatal error taking out recycling! Click to find out more!" But at least CNN.com should let us know what the big earth-shaking news is, right? Wrong. As I write this, "Boehner in charge as Congress returns", a story that might, I don't know, have some sort of relevance to what happens in our world, is confined to tiny print on the left side of the screen in a list of "Latest News". Well then, the leading headline, the one in big print with a huge picture to illustrate it, must be some big news. Nope. Unless "Skateboard school ramps up dreams" (see what they did there? ramps? skate park?) is big news to you. This is not a normal skateboard school, though. This is the uplifting tale of a skateboard school in Afghanistan, which leads me to the conclusion that CNN has shifted all of their Afghanistan reporters from insignificant things such as the WAR GOING ON RIGHT NOW to skate parks. I'm still trying to figure out if this is more of a reflection on CNN or on the fact that the American public would rather hear about skate parks than wars that their country is paying billions of dollars to fight.

Sorry for the ranting today. My upcoming NFL Playoffs Week 1 Preview should be more relaxed. As a final reminder, there is a button that says "follow" in the top right. Believe it or not, it is not just a pretty decoration. It takes like 10 seconds to click it and follow the steps, and you don't need any sort of specialized account. Do it.

Some Thoughts

What is it with car companies? Or, more specifically, why has it taken 20 years for car ads to stop sucking? Up until very recently, almost every car commercial was long, extensive footage of the car in question being driven along a windy road in the middle of nowhere while someone about as exciting as a history textbook told you all the car's great features. It is extremely unclear what part of this makes you want to buy the car. It's hard for me to imagine someone going, "WOW, this car is just way better than the one I saw a minute and a half ago at driving down abandoned stretches of road!! Honey, grab the keys to the car we bought last week, we're buying a new one!!" By the way, how can there be so many car commercials? At any given time, how many people are in the market for a new car? Maybe I'm missing something, but most people I know wait a good 5-10 years before even thinking of replacing their car. How many prospective car buyers does this leave at any given time? Anyway, the car industry is getting smarter at appealing to those people who are exploring their options by venturing away from the car driving in the middle of nowhere advertising approach. It started out rocky, with that one ad (I can't recall which company), where the people drove past floating letters with statistics about the car. What was supposed to be humorous about the commercial was that the people were seeing the floating letters and trying to figure out why they were there. Unfortunately, the ad was slightly less funny than witnessing an armed robbery. But since then, car commercials have come along nicely, highlighted by the Acura "Season of Reason" series of ads, which were actually chuckle-inducing. So why do I bring any of this up? Because it turns out none of it matters. After a lengthy search process, my father has settled on his new car being... a Subaru. Is there anything less classy than a Subaru, of any model, besides maybe a Ford Fusion? Not that I know anything about cars, but, gee, dad, let's not spoil ourselves here! The Subaru is like the pork chops of cars- it's not classy, and it's also not blue-collar cool. I didn't think I could ever care about what car my family owned, but the Subaru choice has proved me wrong. Sheesh.

Why do people always make sure to let you know that there are children starving in Africa every time you fail to finish every morsel of food on your plate? I don't find these two things to be related. Last I checked, I am not a starving child in Africa, and starving children in Africa aren't going to be punished for me leaving food on my plate. If you are on such a crusade against the hunger of African children, you are more than welcome to box up my food and send it to Africa. I will even help you put it in the box. I will not pay for postage, though. Don't get carried away.

Skip this if you are not a football fan. Apparently, the Seahawks are "still deciding" on a starting quarterback for their playoff game against the Saints this weekend. I think this should be an incredibly easy choice- choose the guy who looks like Jesus. Matt Hasselback may have a few more playoff wins than Charlie Whitehurst, but Charlie Whitehurst is possibly related to God. Why is this important? Because Tim Tebow is God's brother, so you know that it's a good football family. Also, Matt Hasselback is older than my great-grandmother. But, let's face it, this decision is inconsequential. The only way the Seahawks win this game is if Pete Carroll gets in touch with the USC booster who paid Reggie Bush in 2005 and has him bribe Bush to throw this game. Otherwise, I and every other person in the world will forecast a 20 point Saints victory.

That's all I have to say at the moment. Sorry for the shameless plug, but if you enjoyed this post, or thought it sucked but liked a previous one, please click "follow" in the upper right so I know someone is reading this. Thanks!

Get Rich!

Everyone likes money and music. Here is a way to make both- follow these steps to create a surefire top 40 pop hit!

1. Writing a melody
The first step to creating your song is writing the "melody", aka, the "tune", aka, "the sounds your annoying friend hums while pretending he knows the words but can't sing right now because his mouth is full". Following the example of other great composers, like Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, you will most likely want to use a great deal of technical strategies and techniques to create the most interesting musical variation possible. Ha-ha! Gotcha! What you really want to do is go to the nearest piano and select any two white keys with a black key in between them. Play the two white keys over and over in random order and rhythm. Remember what notes you played. This is your melody.

2. Writing lyrics
To write the most emotionally jarring, life-changing lyrics, the best strategy is probably to lock yourself in a dark room for several days without food and water and wait until you have an epiphany. Thankfully, nobody wants to hear those kind of lyrics, so you don't have to do that. Remember, for your song to be successful, you want everyone from your 5-year-old cousin to the pedophile who lives around the corner to know how it goes. This means the lyrics should be simple and easy. Still not sure what to write about? Here are some prompts to get you started:
-Think of as many metaphors as you can for what it feels like when you see an attractive member of the opposite sex but realize you look like Susan Boyle. Attempt to rhyme these.
-Explain in great detail, but using the vocabulary of a learning-impeded second grader, why you broke up with your boyfriend/girlfriend.
-Write a very generic song about basically anything. Then think of any explosive- grenades, fireworks, and dynamite have been known to work. Choose a few periodic words in the song you wrote and replace them with the word of the explosive. Pretend it makes sense.

Still stuck? Well, just because you suck at this doesn't mean you can't make money, too. Make up a nonsensical chant along the lines of "Gaga, ooh la la, roma, roma ma". You are finished. Before proceeding to the next step, make sure you combine your lyrics and your melody. It doesn't really matter how you do it, because if you followed the steps correctly, your song already sounds slightly worse than a roomful of teenage girls who have all simultaneously discovered that they have a small pimple.

3. Choosing your artist
This step is easy. It is very important to choose an established star to sing your song if you want to make money. However, make sure they aren't too successful. If they are, they might get overly cocky, which the Gods of Pop Music hate. The last time someone attempted to proclaim themselves "King of Pop", the Gods of Pop punished him by changing his gender and race! And making him so crazy, that, judging by both his fashion and sexual preferences, he must have believed himself to be about a 3-year-old girl.
Sorry. Anyway, yeah, just choose anyone famous to sing your song. It doesn't matter.

4. Choosing the album artwork
This is another very easy step. There are three basic cases to guide you here.
Case A) Your vocalist/band is male. The album cover should be a shot of them "pouting", preferably while wearing dark clothing. "Pouting" is a pose that suggests that whoever is doing it is both angry and sexually aroused. If you find it difficult to attain the proper pose from the vocalist/band, try telling them that their groupies have arrived, but they were unable to purchase as much cocaine as last time. This should produce the desired affect.
Case B) Your vocalist/group is female. The album cover should be a shot of them that makes males who would otherwise rather spend an hour diving repeatedly onto a bed of pins than listening to their music so aroused that they purchase it immediately. To do this, find the skimpiest piece of clothing you own. Now cut 90% of it off, and cut large holes in the remaining 10%. Have the vocalist/group wear this to cover their private areas. Next, adorn them with a quantity of makeup worth more than the yearly GDP of a mid-sized African country. You should be good to go.
Case C) Your vocalist is Amy Winehouse. Obtain a picture of something more attractive, such as a rose, or a pile of horse manure, and use this as your album artwork.

You are finished! Your money will be flowing in any day now. Congratulations!

The No Fun League

Why does the NFL so often go out of its way to avoid putting forth the best product? Here in the Bay Area, our local football teams are the San Francisco 49ers (49 being Alex Smith's career-high completion percentage), and the Oakland Fighting Al Davises. Due to ridiculous licensing agreements between the NFL and its TV networks, me and my millions of neighbors were subjected to 3 hours of Cardinals-9ers this afternoon, a game with lower stakes than the basketball games I used to play at recess in 3rd grade. The likelihood that anyone besides Larry Fitzgerald's father watched this game is zero. Meanwhile, in other parts of the country CBS (which in the Bay Area was showing "the Tim McCarver Show", which does not really exist, CBS just assumes you will not check because no one would ever watch it) showed the Colts and Jaguars games, while Fox (which was showing the previously mentioned 49ers Snore Bowl) showed the Packers and Giants games.
What about this makes sense? Fox and CBS have crews at every Sunday morning and afternoon game anyway- why not allow their local affiliates to choose what game they want to show? If the local team is remotely close to being worth watching, the affiliate will choose their game, because the team has the most fans in their area. But if they have set the record for most losing seasons in a row (8-8 this year, baby! 8-8!), the network can look elsewhere. Why reward a team that is 1-9, say, by forcing their fans to sit through another 30 point loss, instead of enjoying a match-up between two playoff-aspiring 7-3 teams?
Of course, the NFL, which is notoriously lackadaisical in catering to fans, will not even consider a change to their licensing agreements right now. They assume, rather correctly, that their fans depend on the league as their weekly escape from their otherwise fun-free lives. Watching Cardinals-9ers is better than catching up on work or, gasp, spending time with the family. But I remain somewhat hopeful that after the impending lockout, during which NFL fans will be forced to turn to college football and hoops, hockey, and baseball, the NFL will be left trying to win back viewers. And how do they do that? By depriving Larry Fitzgerald's father of a glimpse of his son, and giving the rest of us a game worth caring about.