Back In Black

Hello my young trendmongers, it is I, Greggary Peccary, back after a long break. Sorry to keep you all waiting (no doubt you all sat waiting with baited breath for my return) but things have been up. In the tragic news, my grandmother has passed away, and I spent about four days at home. I saw some family I hadn't seen in two years, and that was okay. No more commentary on this.

I've also been debating quitting my part time job at ALS-UP which is taking care of mentally handicapped people. I had to stay at work twelve hours yesterday, and there was almost a fist fight and we held a guy down for four hours. No more commentary on this.

My roommate has also been trying to find somebody to sublease the place, as she wants to move out. I'm not sure why, it honestly really makes little sense to me. She's saving a little money on a place she hardly ever stays at (she stays at her boyfriends) but there are so many disadvantages to her new place. No more commentary on this.

I'm also on a diet. No more commentary on this.

Okay, now that I've started four different topic threads and closed them all, perhaps I should move onto something I feel comfortable discussing. Yes, something banal, impersonal, but also quasi-intellectual and deep. Let's talk about music and music snobbery.

My big love in life (besides trendmongering) is music. I own more CD's than most people have listened to in their life, have read books about my favorite artists, put myself into debt trying to collect all I want, and am slowly learning the art of playing and composition. However, I don't consider myself a snob, and really dislike people who would consider themselves such, in honor and pride, saying they simply have "better taste."

From my perspective, I naturally have better taste than anybody else. Of course! The music I like is the "good music" and everything else is garbage eh? Anybody who cares at all about any sort of art form and has invested themselves into it naturally feels this way. From painting to movies, millions of experts exist, that clamp at the bit trying to prove everybody else wrong and stupid.

All right, fair enough. But the point is, that to be a true critic, to truly understand what you like and don't like and why, you have to investigate all angles of your art form. You can't JUST listen to indie rock, rate it all as GREAT AND BEAUTIFUL ART while bashing everything else based on the fact that it's not indie rock. This is just scenesterism, elitism, and it's closed minded, narrow, and harmful to art. For the continuation of all art, and for it to progress, healthy dialogue must exist.

For music, this means popping in a Britney Spears CD and listening to it, while attempting to judge it as music, not as pop art. Now, I'm no fan of Britney Spears or any of that type of music. And I haven't sat and listened to one of her albums to judge it. But I think I will have to at some point, to understand it, before I completely dismiss it without knowing why I hate it so much. So many critics just dismiss things without even experiencing it: I myself have fallen into this category, shamefully, but I do try to see things from many angles.

I knew a guy who bashed a friend of mine because he liked indie rock, punk, heavy metal, funk, country, blues, prog rock, and techno. He said that my friend had "bad taste" because he liked too many things, and didn't focus on just indie rock. This is exactly the problem with music and art in general today: too much narrow focusing on one genre or style at the cost of an entire world of art.

Naturally, people generally like a pretty specific type of music and sounds. I, for example, like music that pushes the envelope on song form and length, and that incorporates ideas from jazz and classical. Art rock and prog, I guess you could call it. But one of my absolute favorite groups of all time is The Who, I love AC/DC, the Beach Boys, and ABBA. And I definitely had to go outside my narrow focus to discover my ability to love them. By understanding something outside your range, you can either expand your range, or confirm it, but understand what you don't like about it. I hate modern country, but it took me years of exposure and video watching to understand that it was the emotional posturing and fakery that made me hate it so much, the "we're real salt of the earth" type postures that seemed so fake because they were. Without tooting my own horn, I think that this is what one needs to do with all art forms. One must constantly be experiencing new things if one is to understand what is good and what is bad. And snobbery will fail to create this type of atmosphere by it's very nature.

Join me next time for when I talk about sports!

The Filmmaker and Academia

I'm talking about this topic because it came up in discussion sometime ago on a forum. As everyone I know furthers their education, they begin to have ethical opinions about the relevance of academia for future filmmakers. Some take consideration of academia, but aren't driven to truly study it. Many filmmakers even disregard it. I'm unique among them because I come more from a critical perspective, but I'm trying to understand both sides. What follows is a post on a forum about the subject.

First off, I don't believe academia is essential for all filmmakers. Most up and coming filmmakers I know want to film personal stories. They have ambitions to stylize their work in the shadow of their favorite filmmakers, but they still want to tell their own stories. They do not have serious ambitions to make films that compare and contrast different cinemas and histories. All they want to do is develop a good understanding of the approaches to the filmmakers they like. You can read general criticism and watch a lot of movies to achieve that. The major questions for these filmmakers is how good they are as a filmmaker, storyteller and commentator on life. That isn't something you find in a class or a "how to" book.

But, academia is essential to film as an art. Academia is prevalent in every other major art and has been the reason that many of them have carried over to still have resonance today. People over estimate the value of public perception for doing this, but it's academia. The value of thought and the relationship a work of art has to theoretical ideas gives it a better chance to carry over into the next century and still be meaningful. That's true because theories develop and advance, but many new films and works of art are still being looked at under some very old terms of critical thinking. The fact that many films are able to be understood in the context of how other arts is being judged is what is making it be considered a legitimate art form. Of course the details of how films are judged is different, but there are basic theoretical similarities.

Bernard Shaw said a work of art was only meant to be meaningful to the public for a hundred years. I think that basic idea has a special relationship to film. Films like Casablanca and It's A Wonderful Life are considered classics, but will they be as acclaimed as they are today in 500 years? The reason these movies still survive has more to do with public sympathy and memory, but generations of people are dying and the next generations are being further removed all the time. The disparity will only continue to grow. The chance that these movies drop off the face of the movie world becomes even more likely considering numerous films are made to replicate the emotions in those films. The newer films will have a better chance to carry over because they will be made for that generation and time period. This also takes into account many accomplished dramas and independent films. They too have as many things about them that are just made for the time period that can later become irrelevant.

If a filmmaker does open himself up to academia, he can make films that are conscious of the history of art like other artists have done. In literature, James Joyce's Ulysses will survive until the end of the novel itself does. Not because it was just the best work of its era but because it had the greatest structural innovations ever found in a novel. It's not studied for what it had to say about Joyce the man or his time period, but for its revolution to the novel. Academia is the main area for study of an art. Most filmmakers aren't interested in those details, but some are. Many of those filmmakers were prevalent in the 1960s and are still making films in different pockets around the world. The filmmakers ambitious enough to make films that are studies of its film art are getting fewer, but it is still important work.

That being said, it's a crap shoot what films will be truly remembered. Not all good films by filmmakers conscious of film art will be remembered and not all films made for public emotion will be forgotten, but luck will have more to do with that process. By true remembrance I mean the films that can be easily identified by everyone as a known film. But, great works by filmmakers who are ambitious to challenge the bounds of their art will help forward ideas for future filmmakers and film artists. Even if God doesn't exist, Robert Bresson gave himself an everlasting life with the books and articles he wrote. He will always be studied and known. And a film like Citizen Kane has no chance to be forgotten.

There is a quote by Werner Herzog, "...for academia is the death of cinema. It is the very opposite of passion". I hate the quote. It is stupid because it makes the word passion resonate only to emotion. As I figure, passion has as much to do with the mind as it does the heart. Does Werner Herzog believe filmmakers who aspire to make academically sound films are passionless? Hans Jurgen Syderberg makes films that are tough for everyone relate to, but he attacks his subject with as much fervor as anyone else. He just so happens to have an academic brain and relates his subject back to its theoretical and societal roots.

People want to pigeonhole films by saying the methods of their favorite filmmakers is the only way to make a great film, but there are many ways to make a great film that involve both logic and emotion. Academia is helpful to understand many different filmmakers and films. It also isn't reducing some films to look at them from an academic perspective. For many great filmmakers, that was the intention in the first place.

Old Magazine, New Problems

The magazine I subscribe to is The New Republic. It was the best magazine I knew of because it adequately mixed articles and essays on both political and art subjects. The magazine didn't prefer one side to the other. The political came first in the magazine, but their art section was considered by many outside critics to be one of the best in any magazine.

I went to the magazine because of some of the writers. They were Stanley Kauffmann, the longtime film critic, and Robert Brustein, the theater critic. Then there is James Wood, a collegiate professor who also writes literary reviews. I've also come to like the music critic, David Hadju. Finally, Jed Perl was the art critic who made me understand an avenue of the art world that only mystified me before. These writers were fundamental teachers for me in my education.

To top it off the magazine had weekly political columns by people like Peter Beinart and Jonathan Chait. Most political magazines give portraits of politicians to better understand their motives. The portraits aren't meant to be define the politicians by their issues, but by their personal and political history. I always felt like I never got an accurate portrait of the world, but these writers wrote about issues first and foremost. They were very helpful in giving a true perspective of the political world.

I began to subscribe to the magazine three years ago, but the magazine I once loved is beginning to change for me. First, a few of the writers on staff are seemingly on hiatus or gone. James Woods has left the magazine for The New Yorker and Robert Brustein is a non-entity these days. He's still listed as on staff, but he hasn't written a piece, I think, in over a year. Other writers have written about theater for the magazine since then. Jed Perl writes now and then, but his presence isn't mandatory for subscription to the magazine. All his pieces end up in books later on. I've begun to just collect them to catch up on his work. David Hadju and Stanley Kauffmann are still the only regular contributors.

But Stanley Kauffmann is in question. He's been with the magazine since 1958 and is now a respectable 91 years of age. The fact he is still working is amazing, but his future can't last much longer. It seems The New Republic understands this because they have hired an online film critic in Christopher Orr. His position first was a video critic of new releases to DVD, but he has moved to theatrical releases as well. The magazine kept separation between him and Kauffmann by having him deal strictly with Hollywood releases as Kauffmann took on the latest art films, but now Orr is starting to review the same films as Kauffmann. The overlap happened recently when both Kauffmann and Orr reviewed Kenneth Branagh's remake of Sleuth. Kauffmann liked the film while Orr didn't. Kauffmann's review was published in the magazine, but Orr's hit the front page of the website.

It's understandable for two critics to be employed, but to have both of them reviewing the same films is ridiculous. It's showing that the elder critic is being moved out in favor of the younger one. The worst thing is that Christopher Orr is a terrible critic. He began by seriously reviewing Hollywood slop like X-Men 3 and his critical expertise hasn't gone beyond the general candidates for Academy Award consideration. His insights are no more professional than the good online film critic and his critical judgement seems geared to over praise the best Hollywood has to offer. At best he is a very good popcorn critic. Stanley Kauffmann has seen his best days already past him, but even Kauffmann's worst effort is still better than Orr's best. Kauffmann is a true critic with larger perspectives and ideas.

The political side of the magazine has lessened as Peter Beinart is no longer a constant presence at the magazine. He's simply a sometimes contributor and the magazine has shown greater weakness by having less columns about issues and problems and more about political profiles - the kind of profiles that look more the sale of a candidate than a critical rendering of them. The New Republic is the analysis side of the political and art world, but I'm not so sure I am comfortable with all their losses and who they believe are adequate replacements. My subscription ends next summer. I don't think I am going to renew it. The only reason I do is that if their aren't other magazines that look like the better option.

The Good Ol' U.S.A.

I've been reading a book about the historical relationship between the United States and England. The subject material is fascinating, but it was as written in the 1980s and gives no compass for the world we live in today. It's funny how a historical book with any political objective can look historical in a quick amount of time. The point is that this book is making me look at situations that both countries are in today and not how they are generally similar, but how they are both significantly different.

The general idea is that both countries have common ties. England looks to be our greatest ally today, but while it's not our longest ally (France takes that title), England is the country we have the longest relationship with. We also share a similar language. To us, it's one and the same, but to other countries, we speak American, not English. Also our idea of military and global conquest was fashioned after England. By the time America was starting to forge its own identity, we were looking first to make an elite navy and setting up colonies around the world. The military part was our greatest success.

The Twentieth Century gave us two World Wars and shifted the balance of power from England to the United States. England was both physically destroyed and emotionally exhausted. It was in both wars from the start and was the target of mass bombings. London gets distinction for being the first city to get bombed in its urban area. Before it happened in World War I, it had never happened before. Armies attacked only military complexes, but things changed. America was able to prosper through both wars for always entering the war late and not having its home turf be a battle ground. World War II was mainly fought in firebombings and destructions of cities. The United States had a small island off the coast of Alaska invaded. I believe the fighting only lasted a few days. That's the history of modern warfare on U.S. soil.

Today we don't give the history of England with the same discerning glare that we do for the United States. One is because it is English history and not ours. Second is because our history of bad deeds has graced most of the 20th Century. England was made non-important as a major power half way through.

The oddity is that in one current situation England is not looking very good at all. With the War on Terror a worldwide conflict, race relations in Western modernized states have become very tense. Terrorists arent just homegrown in Middle Eastern countries, but districts within the country they are attacking as well. Our general idea of terrorists have been made into our mind with the ability of terrorists to get into the United States and attack the World Trade Center with little ease, but that wasn't the case with the bombing in England and Spain. The prepetrators there were able to be products of those societies.

Most major countries have some influx of other societies and races within its population. Certainly all three countries in question do, but considering the United States has the most villianous image around the world, why didn't Muslim people from within the U.S. attack the World Trade Center? And why did they come from within England and Spain and attack the country that housed them most of their natural born lives?

There are numerous reasons, but the major ones have to deal with the basics of national identity for each country in questions. First, both Spain and England were based on racial identities. England for the English and Spain for the Spanish. The mixture of different societies and giving them equal rights is a considerably new phenomenon. This hasn't made for an easy transition, but an uncertain identity for many minority sects. Because they see a majority and history around them that doesn't include them, there can be resentment. There also can be resentment for people of the native race as well. They may see minorities as impeding on their lives and land.

The United States has a basis of history that makes it a melting pot for numerous societies. There has been large spread of racism and even anti-immigration, but it's been an entire history of dealing with that situation instead of a newer phenonomenon like in England and Spain. The United States was able to modernize quicker and allow minorities to feel more at peace with living there because different people and religions were always part of the United States. Christianity has become a large part of our culture, but it is still not a national religion and our President isn't head of church as well as state. In England there is a national religion and the Queen is head of church. That's a deeper history.

There is another explanation. When people go from oppressive countries to the United States, they are leaving mainly because of exile and escape from a brutal dictatorship. The freedoms of the U.S. are much more welcomed. The majority of population of immigrants in England are people coming from former British colonies who aren't going to just escape tolitarian regimes, but going to a country they feel they have a right to live in if they so choose to do considering England's brutal history around the world. The United States hoped to colonize the way England did and even tried to, but didn't achieve what England could. By the time the U.S. was coming to true power England was waving goodbye to many it's worldy possessions.

These differences are major pronents to the shifting tides on the War of Terror and our basic identity of racism at home. The United States has a chance to accidentally house terrorists, but their basic identity and history as a country is off setting those chances. The funny thing is that England and Spain are not major targets of current criticism, but yet because of their identity and older history they are more likely to be breeding grounds for terrorism.

The one true faith

Well...maybe if it was a chick in a bikini I'd think about it.





Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amossin/1443850133/

State Limits

After a good five days off to take care of my midterms, I am back on the job with a small note. Sundays always mean football so I'll make a small comment about an interesting geographical debate that takes place in both football and sports in general.

My entire life I've been a Green Bay Packer fan. There has been no confusion or doubt about this fact. No team has ever tempted my appreciation. One of the few consistencies in my life has been my dedication to the Packers.

Yet, I am from Michigan. The state does have a team in the Detroit Lions. The majority of the people in the state do like the Lions. I understand the Detroit sympathy. I like the Pistons, Red Wings and Tigers (all from Detroit) but I love the Green Bay Packers over the Lions. Why?

The fact is I come from a part of the state that has more in common with Green Bay. The Packers feel like a local team for most people of the Upper Peninsula. I come from the central area of this part of the state and thus I am directly above Wisconsin and only share director border with Wisconsin. For me to travel to the lower part of the state is longer than for me to go 60 miles into Wisconsin to hit Detroit.

Most people from the most populated cities in the UP also prefer the Green Bay Packers. These cities are also located in the central area (Escanaba, Menonimee, Iron Mountain and Marquette) and see closer affiliation to the Packers than anyone else. I don't know how people from the Western or Eastern areas feel. The Vikings are closer on the West and the Lower Peninsula (the gateway to Detroit) is closer on the East side, but I still think a good percentage are still Packers fans because across the Upper Peninsula is a manner of life that looks and feels like Green Bay than it does Detroit.

Then why don't people from this area also prefer the Milwaukee Bucks and Brewers? That city is only two hours south of Green Bay and still closer to the UP then Detroit is, yet most people in the UP go with Detroit sports on this subject. I think there are a few reasons. First, Milwaukee isn't anything like Green Bay. It's a larger city in every way. The feeling of local connection and empathy is lost. Green Bay has 100,000 people, but has no skyscrapers or major urban areas. It looks like a larger version of any city in the UP.

The second reason has to deal with the history of both teams in Milwaukee. The Bucks have always been a terrible franchise more famous for great players starting out there and then leaving to go bigger better careers with better teams. The Milwaukee Brewers before were the Milwaukee Braves, but that franchise left to go to Atlanta. It had a great credential in housing Hank Aarron, but some prestige was lost when they left and were replaced by a new team, the Brewers.

Then looking at Detroit you have one of the oldest and most heralded teams in MLB history with the Tigers. That team remains a landmark for both the city and the state. The level of excitement that state had a year ago with the 2006 team shows how treasured they still are. And the Pistons are one of the most successful teams of the modern era in the NBA. That sport was a late bloomer for national attention anyways. There isn't a long history like with other sports so the success of the Pistons has been its link to captivating the rest of the state.

The other sports have looser ties to the area than football does. As I said in another post, a sport seems to represent an area. The sport of interest for the Upper Peninsula is football. The most unquestioned fact about the UP is love for Green Bay Packers football.

There is also another curious fact. Most teams are represented in a small number of states and a few states also have multiple teams. One team is also placed housed within a district instead of a state (Washington Redskins). Considering few states just house one team, state crossing for team love is more likely the case than not. It's even been reported recently that Buffalo Bills will start playing exhibition games in Toronto because they have a lot of fans there so it goes beyond just state crossing there.

It's a silly idea to think a person from one state has to like the team of that state. The world of sports appreciation is much more nuanced than that. Looking at the Green Bay Packers and their unique bond to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, it seems more natural than odd that that many Packer backers would come from there.

Meat The New Post, Same As The Old Post

She has gotten fat since I first met her. Oh granted, she was always a bit on the "chunky-fried" side (and who am I to talk?) but she has really put on weight. It's noticeable. And I don't think it's baby fat, so I don't think she'll "grow into it" unless she plans on growing another two feet. It's all that drinking and partying she does. That coat doesn't fit you any more Miss Piggy. When will kids realize that the answer to all of the world's problems don't exist at the bottom of a bottle?

They exist right here.

Today, on Greggary Peccary's Nightmares And Dreamscapes, we will discuss a problem plaguing the world today. What is this, a political blog or something? I don't know shit about politics, really, my main agenda is fashion and "hippness" so I should probably focus on that. She has put on weight too. A different girl I mean. She's tall, and I can see it. She's widening. Her boyfriend is a really skinny gumpy guy, but such is life I suppose. Okay I must stop being such a BITCH! Joan Crawford, eat your heart out! Or something. Okay, it's finally time for the post you have all been waiting for: shoe shopping tips!

Now you might say, I already covered this in another post, but those were too quick to be of real good use. So here's my real shoe shopping tips. In other words, here's one for the ladies.

1. Take a friend. Shopping can be fun, but only if you have somebody with you! Who wants to try on shoes all day by themselves? Nobody, that's who! You might run into some sort of guy who makes Al Bundy look normal and loveable. So you should take a friend to distract the Al Bundy guy. Keep talking about your "boyfriend" (a real boyfriend is unnecessary) and keep talking about how your friend is single. Take a better looking friend. Be honest: you aren't the best looker in the group. Sheila is, even with that godawful name.

2. Be honest. Look, I know it's hard to admit you have huge feet. But do it, Peggy. Embrace your size 74 shoes. Just think of all the jobs you can get at children's parties! You'll be popular! And drunk!

3. Fuck it I don't want to do this any more.

Radio London Reminds You: Go To The Church Of Your Choice

Hello again, it's Greggary Peccary, the trendmonger extraordinare! Quite a word, that one. How often do you get a chance to use that word? Very rarely these days, unfortunately. That's okay, I will take any commiseration offered. Another word you rarely hear! Oh my stars and garters!

Does anybody still wear garters these days? I saw one for sale on T.V. at work on Sunday. They make women's bodies look all hot and shit; as long as they're wearing clothes. Soon as they take that shit off, the pudgy gut, flat unappealing ass, and droopy tits come roaring right back. Not that I'm condeming these women for aging: we all age and our bodies began to change in pretty negative ways. And like I have any room to talk of pudginess! It's just the hiding of, the ineffective denial of imperfections in the body.

Again, this is something that only gets worse with time. And it always falls harder on women than on men. Oh sure, these days, with the more modern, more feminised man, looks have become something they obsess over just as much. Or maybe they just do it more openly now. Either way, it isn't getting better, it's getting worse.

What can you do when you are assaulted by images of beauty constantly? What should a ten year old girl, who might have a pudgy gut, think about herself when her favorite teen idols are damn near perfect thanks to a combination of good genetics and thousands of dollars of work? There are girls that are ten throwing up to lose weight to look like Brittany Spears (well, before her weight gain, rough aging thanks to partying, and generally creepiness). The Olsen twins are likely to die before they hit thirty. They're all drugged out, weigh a hundred pounds combined, and already look like fourty five year old bar skags. And they are barely in their mid twenties.

What is this all about? This is a pretty generic post in a lot of ways. A lot of people tend to rant about this stuff, and I don't really have anything to offer, by means of explanation, or a "solution" to the problem. Basically, there's one thing I have to say about this, from a trendmonger perspective:

Obsessing over trivial imperfections in the body is a trend that is definitely on the rise.

How many countries are there in the world?

There 194 countries by popular count, which includes the Vatican City and Taiwan who are the only countries not part of the United Nations. By the U.S. dept. of state count there are 193 countries, because they consider Taiwan as part of China.

The GDP (gross domestic product, or the total value of good and services produced within one country in one year), ranges from 13,244,550 million, (U.S.) to 60 million, (Kiribati), which is number 181 on the International Monetary Fund list for 2006. Several countries are excluded from the list.

Comparatively Exxon Mobile * brought in 39.13 billion dollars of profit for 2006 alone, which would stand 67 on the GDP list just below Ecuador.


*Source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/full_list/index.html


Random fact update - 10/16:

Speaking of the GDP in Kiribati, the game Second Life had an estimated real world GDP of 61 million. That's right, a computer game has a greater GDP then an entire nation. What's more is the figure is estimated to increase to between 500 and 600 million which is comparable to Grenada and Gambia, number 168 and 169 on the country GDP list.

Second life is not a game company. It's like The Sims on a much bigger scale. Individuals create there avatars then make transactions with the in game money called Lindens. The money is based on U.S. currency. The exchange rate even fluctuates as the in game free market pushes the currency to appreciate or depreciate.

It's quite the times we're living in, a third of the world lacks running water, while we're creating virtual worlds to entertain ourselves.

What Baseball Playoffs?

Those who live in my area and hate sports usually have a warped picture of sports in American culture. They believe sports permeates through every part of the United States. Not true. I come from a small rural area in the Great Lakes region. The four main sports in popular American culture began cities in my area or in the northeastern part of the United States.

Every city in my area and the Boston-New York area has great endearment to one sport or another. Green Bay is Title town for professional football and houses the stadium that John Madden says should be the shrine for all of football across the country. Detroit is hockey town with one of the most popular teams in the sport, the Red Wings. As much as hockey has dwindled over the years for coverage, Detroit managed to sell out for Red Wing tickets for ten years straight.

My specific area is mainly dedicated to football. The Green Bay Packers are basically a local team being just two and half hours away, but football also gets the most stomach turning reaction. Unless you grew up to love the sport, you're bound to see it as just dumb and violent. The non-stop coverage by ESPN of it doesn't help at all. Football has become the national pass time.

Last year that almost changed. The Detroit Tigers were resurrected from the dead and went on an unbelievable run that lead to an American League Pennant. Just three years ago ESPN called the Tigers the worst sports franchise in history, but all of a sudden they became the pride of the area. It was easy to celebrate because the Packers were having a marginal year.

The casual person who was appalled by football was able to love baseball. It's a simple sport of grace and beauty. Physicality is non-existent and baseball aligns itself to older traditions instead of violence or rap music (unlike all other sports). People were truly excited about the Tigers and followed them during the playoffs. It was easy to do because they were winning everything. The important thing is that many people I didn't associate with liking sports began to say they really did like baseball. I thought, "good!"

Now I'm realizing both and I they got ahead of ourselves. The Tigers aren't in the playoffs but the playoffs are still going on. I'm watching as many games as I can. It's fun to do homework and keep an eye on the game or an ear out for the commentary in the background. I figured I could relate to people about the dramatics of the series, but my attempts are falling on deaf ears. The people I saw as casual fans turned into born again baseball fanatics aren't interested.

I question them and ask why, but they have few answers. They relate how they loved what the Tigers did but watching baseball without rooting for a team was really just boring. The more I thought about it, the more I should have known this. Everyone watched Tigers baseball last year, but only die hards watched their pathetic August and September last year when Polanco was injured and they couldn't do shit. I remember most of them saying I had nothing to worry about because Tigers were in first place and doing awesome.

This just reinstates the fact my area is a football place. Oh well. It's not surprising. Cleveland is a football city but yet has a team in the playoffs for baseball. I remember listening to ESPN radio out of Cleveland a few months ago and radio hosts were complaining that the Indians couldn't sell out a game. People called up and said they didn't want to get their hopes up or that baseball was boring. Now Indians are selling out and it's all because they are doing well in the playoffs. Detroit is a better town for baseball, but the area also experienced bandwagon jumpers once the team got into the playoffs.

Sports still remains for sports fans to appreciate.