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.

Department of Corrections

In my last post, I said that South Florida would likely be ranked #3 in the country. The BCS poll was just announced and they are actually #2, jumping ahead of Boston College who beat Notre Dame this week, but didn't beat them by enough points it seems. The point is that my unlikely choice for national title contenders just turned into the likely contender.

The Unlikely College Football Season

Finally, college football is a little interesting.

The sport has always been a sad subject because of the constant situation of powerhouse teams playing non-existent competition. In a sixteen game schedule a great team was likely to play only one or two teams that would be a challenge. Then their true challenge would come in a BCS Bowl Game, but that was one game and one team. There would be fifteen other great teams they didnt play because they were in different divisions and gave them no chance to ever play against each other.

This lopsidedness has forced every team to go undefeated and just hope they'd be chosen to play the national title game because there is no such thing as a playoff. This makes for questionable decisions and no true national champion because other unbeaten teams would finish their year with not even a chance at the title.

College football doesn't have a playoff yet, but it does have some fascinating upsets that is changing the face of the game. Numerous teams in the top ten have already lost to lesser quality teams, including many at the top ranking. This has allowed for a school like South Florida to slowly march up the poll. S. Florida, a Big East division school and considered to have lesser competition than others, has blown out every team its faced and gone undefeated with the flair that is expected of great teams. They began ranked at the bottom half of the top twenty five but because of defeats and what not, they currently stand at #5. And because LSU and Cal (ranked both number 1 and 2) recently lost, S. Florida looks like it will move into the top 3 in the country.

That is amazing. South Florida was considered a non-entity just a few years ago and the equivalent of a division two school because the Big East had no great teams. The Big East has gained more respect and S. Florida, still considered an underdog kind of talent who would lose to numerous other teams on the top 25 if they ever played them, would be in title game if either Boston College or Ohio State (ranked ahead of them) lost a game and S. Florida won out.

South Florida in a title game sounds insane to most experts and may never happen, but the unpredictability of this season could make it just happen. College football hasn't corrected its big mistakes of no playoffs yet, but is showing enough upsets to make the top 25 a little more interesting.

Good Grammar Isn't Hot

This could be a college thing, but a premium has been put on good grammar and vocabulary in everyday use. This exists in only certain social circles, but is becoming a standard in which to evaluate someones intelligence.

The phenomenon that is fueling this could likely be our President, George W. Bush. His policies overseas are easy to disagree with, but his personality seems to inflame even more people. He notoriously stumbles over words, saying the most awkward sentences and then to top it all off, mispronounces the easiest words. There are enough websites about his grammatical inabilities that a book about his language skills doesn't need much research.

The significance of this is the elevation of every one's personal ego. People automatically feel smarter when they know their Commander in Chief cannot do the most basic things. No President inspires across the board agreeance with policies, but they all usually inspire respect of supposed intelligence. That's non-existent for Bush. In the last two years, I know of two mainstream news shows that had the topic, "Is Bush smart?" as a topic for debate. The shows were just reflecting the feelings of a lot of people.

Now the thing isn't to sound like Bush. Poverty in speech is automatically connected to our moronic President, but of course this attitude is moronic in itself. Of all the grievances to take against Bush, his lack of speech abilities should be the last. The ironic thing is that this ties him to our most respected Presidents. Thomas Jefferson, giving his first State of the Union, was so inaudible with his speech that only the first three rows could understand him. Abraham Lincoln, a famous speech writer, lacked all forms of grace and confidence when giving speeches. Lincoln's famous "Four Score and Seven Years Ago" speech wasn't a classic during Lincoln's time. It was actually considered such a blunder that it sent Lincoln into private depression. A small book printed in 1914 about the speech and what Lincoln did afterwards made it considered a classic work.

The effects of this concern for good grammar leads to just instances of arrogance. If someone in casual conversation misspeaks or says something wrong, they can be immediately corrected or mocked. If corrected, they are then told the proper term and reminded why it is good to speak correctly. This leads to basic confusion in the other person because a big deal has been made about a nothing subject. But it's not considered just a nothing subject. It's considered important because it's how you present yourself to others that matter. In interviews for jobs, yes. I say in basic conversation it's better to be kind than grammatically accurate.

I speak with basic ideas, but this has happened to me and I can't get away from it. I know one person who believes it's good to be grammatically correct and I kid her about my inabilities, but I don't consider her to be part of this group. She's a good friend so we are on excellent terms. I say this referring to the people you meet only for an instance. When people talk or meet many times they do measure each other up. For some men, they do so with basic show of physical strength. For others, it's showing intelligence.

You can quote your favorite poet or philosopher in casual conversation, but most people are bored with this. It usually doesn't come off very good because everyone smells it out as pretentious mixed with some pompous, but excellent speech goes under the surface. It shows personal confidence and intelligence in a subtle way. You can instantly attract someone by talking with a structured speech that most people wish they can show in written sentence.

Thus, good grammar can become another method in good arrogance. There are many ways to do this. A few months ago I met someone who was into film and he talked about a filmmaker I knew. I knew this filmmaker so well I immediately said an obscure fact and then said how many books about him I read. That was a dumb move and I immediately slapped myself for it. The rest of the conversation was me asking him sincere questions and complimenting him for a good attitude toward film. So I don't point my fingers at only others, but also at myself. The abuse of good grammar ethics extends to other abuses.

Theories and Professionals

More movie talk. Taken from something I wrote a few months ago in a discussion. I could give a context to the points I'm arguing, but the piece stands alone well. It's not necessary.

The ability for anyone to make independent films at little cost is making film less about theories and ideas and more about directness. The young filmmaker who wants to just emulate his favorite filmmakers can do so and these days has a better chance to make it in the film industry because of it.

Even if he goes to film school he will have little pressure to understand historical theories. The school will focus on the technical while making every student only take a few classes about the theories and ideas about film. They won't have to be fully integrated in this education because their graduation will mainly depend on their short films. Thing is, most people don't want to understand those theories anyways. Scholars have made sure to make film a deft art with a lot to learn that it is becoming more the art of specialists instead of amateur fans and enthusiasts.

Learning about the art of film isn't just reading the newest books about film like it was in the 60s. It's reading a whole array of books that develop ideas and theories and multiplies them into numerous different disciplines and concentrations. In literature you have to be a specialist. You can't read every great book. There isn't enough time to do so. In film you can watch every great film, but now you can't read every idea about all those films.

But film isn't unique with this problem. In the late 50s jazz developed technically to be so complex that it went from being the trendiest thing at a college like Harvard to something only for specialists. Students at Harvard grew to love folk music because it was simple and its pleasure was immediate. The history of music since then has been that music has developed the means so anyone can play it and succeed at it. Most indie bands these days aren't challenging anything. I'm always shocked that the White Stripes are so praised but yet I can re-produce Meg White's drumming with relative ease and I have almost no experience in drumming. The garage band mentality rules.

The idea is to keep it from ruling in film. Film needs to have film artists who are professionals and have a serious mentality toward their subjects. To me, Wes Anderson is at best good candy. He just makes light and entertaining movies, but because he has style to boot, people put him up on a higher level. He doesn't deserve the praise. It's a lot easier for an up and coming filmmaker to emulate Wes Anderson than it is for them to emulate Michelangelo Antonioni. Nobody wants to take on the largeness of his ideas. They want to make films that seem like they curb the mainstream but really have the immediate pleasures of Hollywood.

I have a feeling I'll continue to be more and more the contrarian all the time with how far things are dwindling. Movies will always be mass entertainment, but serious film may become a regulated art form like painting, poetry and serious theater.

The Future of Film

This will be a short post for a large subject. One that could get even bigger in the next few years, but for now, I'll just contemplate instead of delve. I'm worried about the future of film. Not just as an art, but in its perception to the rest of the world. I don't have definitive reasons for my concerns, but trinkles here and there.

One thing that worries me is the rise of television and video games. Television has always been trying to mimic film, but it's different today. The major difference is that many top technicians are leaving film to work in television. It means better pay for them and more stability. The truth of television in the 1950s is that people could start out in television before moving into film. This was the case for Sam Peckinpah.

I don't really like most television. I've watched at least one episode of every popular show, but I haven't been very impressed. The fault I always lay against television is their reliance on soap opera tactics and half baked plots and ideas. Television shows look much better, but watching Lost or Heroes has been dissapointing for me. They want to change the approaches to television, but essentially, they feature the same low tier dramatics as any other bad show.

The problem is that television is beginning to make a shift into respectable art. Some shows are good and worthy of the praise, but most shows just fufill popular taste and reflect trends of viewership instead of the success of great art. Heroes and Lost are both top rated shows, as is most other critically acclaimed shows, but true art and success hardly ever runs hand in hand. I think people are trying to validate shows that are only cultural intrigues.

See, the study of popular culture is becoming more accepted all the time. Someone can read the pages of US Weekly and be a quality commentator is they have enough perspective to speak about the ins and outs of Hollywood. This mainly just leads to discussion about private lives, but popular culture just entails facts worthy of a trivia game only. The fact that the star of Kumar and Harold Go to Whitecastle taught a class at Harvard on teenage movies shouldn't be applauded for thinking outside the box, but looked down upon for elevating the most mundane subject to serious study.

I take the success of television show by show. I'm not convinced great new strides are being made. The bigger thing being done is that the differences between film and television are beginning to dissipate and if television begins to influence more films, there is a problem. I never believe the Oscars to be good for anything but Hollywood's pat on its back, but it's sad that every year bad movies are selected for Best Picture is kinda heart breaking. I may be getting older, but I don't see the Academy doing good ever again.

The future of serious film is that it may be reduced to a small audience only. The best film of the year will likely play in only five cities before going bust in each of them and then making a quiet debut on DVD. Critics will applaud the work, but have their attention distracted by all the hoopla everywhere else for bad movies. Critics sometimes are stubborn and driven by principles, but they also love to be commentators on trends. Only reviewing films no one sees is considered to be an act of making yourself obsolete in the field.

Life

Hello fellow adventurers, Greggary Peccary here. Or should I say Eric Benac? It might be time to pull back the facade for a post and be more serious for a moment. I am really in no mood to play the "haha" game of nonsense. I was recently informed by my parents that my grandmother, my mother's mother, has about three days to a week to live. She has been fighting brain cancer for the last six months, and she is losing, and is likely to lose very soon. I am not known, even amongst friends, for wearing my emotions on my sleeve, or being that open with sadness. I prefer to suffer alone. But I think a fitting eulogy for a grandmother I may never see again is in order.

My grandmother is in some ways a very simple woman, but in many other ways very complex. She is deeply, deeply, truly religious, as is my grandfather. Naturally, she attended church every Sunday, but so do a lot of people. The only books in her house were the bible, the Reader's Digest, and various religious writings by people like Billy Graham. My grandparents receive a christmas card every year from Billy's organization, thanking them for their donations to the cause. The only station that plays on their T.V. is generally the religious station, except for when my grandpa wants to watch some football. Before getting irreversibly sick herself, she used to pray for friends and family on the phone, when they were sick, and prayed every day for the health of the nation. Religion wasn't just an aspect of her life, it was the overriding all important aspect. It makes conversation with her hard, because religion is not at all important to me.

My grandmother, however, was not a saint. She didn't smoke or drink once in her life. My grandfather, quite an enjoyer of smoking and drinking before the marriage, quickly followed suit. This was perhaps the most important aspect of my grandmother's personality: her ability to quietly, quickly, and effectively guilt people into her moral guidelines. I didn't experience this much first hand, though I did live with her two years, in the basement, while attending community college. I lament the fact that I interacted so little with her and my grandpa so little during this time, but I was young and stupid, and found it hard enough to make conversation with my friends.

My mother, on the other hand, did experience this first hand. When The Graduate came out, my mother really wanted to see it, hearing about it from word of mouth. My grandmother, however, forbid her seeing it, having heard about it from her sister. And I know my grandmother, and I know the way she would have accomplished this: not through outright forbiding it, but by expressing concern that it wasn't "moral" and worrying out loud about whether or not it was something my mother should see. She'd say this to my mother, probably discuss it with my grandpa, and probably say something along the lines of "oh, you can go see it if you want, I guess, but it just sounds so immoral that I worry about your soul." Or maybe she wouldn't even say that much. She might just, as I have heard her do, just say "ooooooh" in such an obvious dismissive and disapproving way that any argument was rendered pointless. Naturally, this was the way my mother disciplined my sister and I.

However, my mother was much more open minded, and pretty much allowed my sister and I free reign to grow up into whatever we became. My grandmother didn't seem to allow this. Not that this is an unusual thing for somebody to do, especially highly religious people. It's almost a cliche, but it's important to understand how perfectly fitting to this cliche my grandmother is. Naturally, the reaction from her children was also a cliche: general rebellion. My uncle Larry, their one son, ran in a "gang" with some cousins and friends of his, wearing leather jackets, smoking cigarettes, and uh, that's about it. They weren't that wild. He did end up getting married very young, to the same woman he's still married to, but that is neither here nor there. He has retired from a GM factory where he worked as a pipe fitter for most of his life. He has become a mean spirited, racist, bitter man. Or maybe he always was? His children have lead interesting lives: his two daughters, Lisa and Brenda have been married at least twice apiece, maybe more. His son Brian has been in and out of prison most of his life, only recently settling down to become a "stay at home dad."

My mother, I guess, probably came out of it the best: her rebelliousness was pretty mild too. She went to college, got a degree (the only one in her family to do so) partied a little, and has smoked for most of her life. She has quit pretty seriously since my grandmother's diagnosis. I am glad, but at 53, the damage to her might have already been done. My sister and I are not that crazy, but that's only in comparasion to the rest of our cousins.

Her sister, Peggy, probably suffered the most because of her rebelliousness. She has also smoked much of her life, has done some partying, but also suffered a drug related mental breakdown. The story surronding this interesting: her drink was spiked at a party by jealous girls, because Peggy had gained the attention of a boy they liked. Her breakdown was almost entirely complete: my mother told me she basically pulled hair out of her head, screamed, babbled nonsense, cried, and often had to be put into a straightjacket for her own safety. She was this way for nearly a year, a condition perhaps exasperated by the fact that her parent's intital response to this behavior was to think she was possessed, and to pray for her soul. However, when this proved ineffective, it was obviously time for medicine to take over. After she "came out of it" she was never the same, claims my mother. Oh, I mean, she's not insane, or ridiculous, but my mom says her personality had just shifted. She has been married three times, with three kids, the oldest of which seems to be heading towards wildness. She is also retired from that same GM factory, as an electrician.

Aunt Myra, the blonde, has suffered as well. She smoked for most of her life as well, probably still does. She know works as a furniture salesman. This is an improvement over her former career as battered wife. Married once, she learned her lesson. Unfortunately, her children have suffered. My cousin Jason, who used to spend a lot of time at my grandparents, has suffered pretty seriously from past drug and alchol abuse. While he's no longer the barely concious shell he was during those days (he no longer does drugs) he isn't much better off. There is something off in him, even as he goes to college, and gets decent jobs and girlfriend's. A far off look in his eyes is always prevalent, a certain randomness to his speech patterns is continual. His sister Sonya has done much better for herself. She is, I think, a hair dresser, but don't quote me on that. She was never as wild as Jason, and seems to have made it out okay. But then again, I barely know her.

And finally is aunt Marilee, the youngest, and perhaps the strangest. She did not rebel at all, and has lived a long, strictly religious life. She also has thirteen children and a husband, who is well known for his laziness. He posesses, among his children, a cult of personality that definitely frighteningly reminds me of a cult. My cousins are all very talented at certain things, as my uncle had thoughtfully cultivated talents in them that he could throughly exploit. My cousin John, a talented carpenter who started his own business at the age of 18, apparently gives his father fifty percent of all of his profits because he "takes care of the books." Fifty percent! These people are also the sort of people that give christianity a bad name: superficially "glory glory halleluiah" but inside very mean spirted, judgmental, and cruel.

What does this have to do with my grandmother? Surely, I am not suggesting that all of these people, with their difficultlies in life, are a direct result of my grandmother? Of course not. My grandfather was also an influence, maybe. My mom said he was pretty laissez faire with the children most of the time, except for when there had to be punishment. So, she obviously had some role in shaping their lives.

But is it my grandmother's fault that my aunt peggy's drink was spiked at a party? Or that her son is a big stupid racist? Or that her daugther myra married a wife beater? Or that my cousin Brian has been in and out of prison? Or that my cousin Jason is a burn out? Can we lay blame for our faults directly on the door steps of our elders? Can I blame my grandmother, for instance, for my depression and paranoia? Mental illness runs in her side of the family, with schizophrenia, hardcore depression, and paranoia rampant. Was I genetically disposed to these things because of her?

It's impossible to answer this question. I believe in free will, but also understand the influence of genetics. And you can't blame my grandmother's occasional overbearing nature for the ruination or near ruination of many lives. People make choices: many of her children chose to be rebellious and move away from her morality, but isn't that a general aspect of human nature? I have rebelled against most of my parent's beliefs, and they weren't overbearing: they were, in fact UNDERbearing. People usually want to grow and try to be their own person, and they struggle to find the way. As my mother grew up, like now, people often think that this answer lies in boozing, drugging, and fucking, which is of course nonsense. No human being can find true inner meaning in a drug. At the most, it can help a person feel like they have "grown up" because they're doing "grown up" things. Hopefully, then, they'll move out of the ridiculous phase and truly grow up and become their own person. So many people never do.

This question of my grandmother's guilt has been plaguing me since I heard she was dying. I had wondered if there was some culpability in her for the events of her children's and grandchildren's lives. This post makes her seem like she is an awful person, and this is far from the truth. In honesty, she would do anything for anybody for no reward. Besides her prayer, she would often guilt my notoriously cheap grandfather into buying things for her children and grandchildren. Things like cars, beds, helping with rent, computers etc. While this has, in effect, allowed her children to become dependent on her for many things (again, besides my mother) she has done this out of the goodness of her heart. My grandparent's built a two story, five bedroom house for the two of them, so that their grandchildren could have a place to sleep when they came. Everything would be dropped, and the oven turned on, whenever anybody at all came to visit. Like many grandmother's she was a persistent food pusher.

These things aren't highly unusual among grandmothers. Most grandmothers should be this way, and my grandmother was a great example of this. However, there is one thing that I think proves the general decency of her soul. For most of my life, my great grandmother Diamond, my grandma's mother, was alive. However, her mind and body started becoming feeble late in her life, and for the last five or six years of her life, my grandmother took care of her, even as she got progressively worse. This included bathing her every morning, changing her diapers (and my great grandma was a huge woman) getting her in and out of bed, chopping her food up etc. Her great mothering instinct kicked in for her own mother, as she tried to allow my grandmother a decent life even in the autumn of her death. What makes this a truly great show of character was the behavior of my grandmother's sisters. She has two of them, and don't ask me to remember their names. Basically, when it was becoming clear that my great grandmother could no longer take care of herself, there was much discussion about what to do with her. Nobody wanted her to end up in a nursing home. Besides that, they couldn't afford it. So, naturally, my grandma was volunteered to take care of her, and did so without complaining for the rest of her mother's life. When the time came to divide up my great grandma's belongings, it was already too late: everything had been snatched up by her sisters, including the house, all the stuff in the house, and even the thousands of dollars my great grandma had stashed around the house in the freezer, under boards, in pillow cases etc. And my grandmother never complained once. That, I believe, is the greatest showing of her character, her general decency, and her very very christian soul. No she wasn't perfect, and yes she was a nagger, but underneath everything she was one of the truly kindest people I knew. She and my grandfather were the only two people on my mother's side of the family, besides my mother, that I have ever had any interest in visiting.

It will be hard to see her go. I haven't cried yet, it hasn't quite hit me entirely. It didn't hit me, when my grandpa Benac died, until I saw his body in the coffin. The last time I saw her was heartbreaking. She is in a nursing home now. Her hair is shaved back, falling out, disappearing due to chemo. She was weak, almost too weak to move, and definitely unable to stand up. She could barely talk besides a forced out, painful whisper, and could barely swallow. Even if she survives, this is the state she will be in for the rest of her life. Her cancer is "spiderwebbed" throughout her brain, and is impossible to operate on. Even with chemo and radiation, it will only stop the growth of the tumor. So if by some miracle she survives, it won't be for long, and she will be taken care of for the rest of her life.

When she dies, a great human being will have been snuffed out. If there is a heaven, she will race upwords towards it, and I believe she takes comfort in that. I'm glad that she takes comfort in it, even if I don't believe in heaven myself. Let her take comfort in that, if it makes it easier for her. I'd rather see her die happy than afraid.

Eric Benac.

I don't want to imagine how this will end

http://www.oomsa.com/images

The Sports Fan: Epilogue

My last post about sports fan psyche deserves a clarification.

At one point I said fans and commentators have to deal with humble pie. This was said in reference to the ridiculousness and absurdities of sports. What I didn't say is that you have to eat humble pie when you start to speak on generalities because you will be proven wrong.

Monday, before the Dallas-Buffalo game, an analyst (in reference to Green Bay Packer's loss to the Chicago Bears) said you can't have five turn overs and expect to win a game ever. Brett Favre threw two interceptions and there were three fumbles. This wasn't a crazy comment. Five turnovers looks costly for any game, but Tony Romo then proved the theory wrong.

On Monday night, Romo threw five interceptions himself and the Cowboys still won the game. All ESPN had to say is that it was an improbable win. Just a four hours earlier, it was considered impossible. Shows how little should to be taken to heart when ex football players start spouting theories on a sport where anything can happen.

They said a blanket statement and were immediately forced to eat their words. Considering they were slamming my team originally, it was a sweet moment. Fuckers.

Very interesting logic puzzle

If you are at all like me this one will rack your brain till you figure it out. It's not easy and involves thinking outside the box. Also if you need a hint or think you know the answer leave a comment. This is courtesy of xkcd
________________________________________________________________

A group of people with assorted eye colors live on an island. They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. If anyone has figured out the color of their own eyes, they [must] leave the island that midnight. Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. Everyone on the island knows all the rules in this paragraph.

On this island there are 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru (she happens to have green eyes). So any given blue-eyed person can see 100 people with brown eyes and 99 people with blue eyes (and one with green), but that does not tell him his own eye color; as far as he knows the totals could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and he could have red eyes.

The Guru is allowed to speak once (let's say at noon), on one day in all their endless years on the island. Standing before the islanders, she says the following:

"I can see someone who has blue eyes."

Who leaves the island, and on what night?


There are no mirrors or reflecting surfaces, nothing dumb. It is not a trick question, and the answer is logical. It doesn't depend on tricky wording or anyone lying or guessing, and it doesn't involve people doing something silly like creating a sign language or doing genetics. The Guru is not making eye contact with anyone in particular; she's simply saying "I count at least one blue-eyed person on this island who isn't me."

And lastly, the answer is not "no one leaves."

The Sports Fan

How much is in being a sports fan, truly?

I say it because I'm a fan of different teams in different sports, but I can never just enjoy a game by my team. I can enjoy them truly crushing the competition, but since that rarely happens, the best way to describe my condition is: nervous.

I'm always nervous. I have no ability to adaquately judge the flow of a game. If it looks like my team will win I automatically fear the worst. Any evidence to support my claim turns into irrational fears exploding and my body aching and groaning. I can not be silent or still during a game. I am exuding numerous groans and moans and always fidgeting. To the person who has little interest in sports, it looks bad.

Am I really that bad? Not at all. See, I don't know serious fans who aren't like this. It comes with the territory. The point is I could be a lot worst. This past friday, I went to see a high school football game. To me watching this was watching the equivalent of a 6th grade game. Win or less, you just want to see a football game. No emotions involved. This wasn't true for some exuberant men who yelled and screamed at every supposed bad call or missed play. These weren't simple asshole parents, but just regular people who had seen the best days of their lives in high school football and hang on to what happens to their high school team like it is life or death. I couldn't believe these guys. They were insane.

There is a good and bad to being a sports fan. The good is that you like something that unites you with the majority of the people. I've found you can be a fan of something most people either don't get or aren't into and think yourself the better because of it. This happens everywhere with music, literature or film. It even happens with other things like politics, social issues or languages. I've run into them all and even shown moments of arrogance that I immediately regretted. The beauty of sports is that it is considered dumb sometimes by people who know it, but also considered beautiful and intricate. You're more likely to eat humble pie because examples of both happen all the time and you learn to live with it.

The bad is that you lose perspective of how important sports shouldn't be and allow it to take over your life. Your feelings become based on how well your team is doing. Unless you are a bandwagon jumper and thus not even a real fan, it's stupid to do. Teams either show spurts of greatness or none at all. The majority of fans don't expect their teams to be contenders for championships every year. The fact is this can be done with anything. The lesson isn't lost on any interest. It's just with sports it becomes so intense because the uncertainty of how well your team is going to do is being spotlighted and talked about on a national stage. That sucks!

The sports world is amazing. Only in sports do you have expert writers on tv shows making fools out of themselves because they understand they are experts for a thing that sometimes makes no sense and borders on ridiculous. Only knowleagable professional wrestling fans have better ideas to the value of life. Too many things in the world are taken too seriously. Most of the time sports isn't. That's what is good about it.

But it always can be.

Sometimes I think Google is omnicient

http://imager.cc/page1/parishiltongoogle/

Empty spaces

I wrote this freshman year of college. Now that I look back on it it's not half bad. Back then, nothing made sense, everything was new, and I lived in the moment, which made for some pretty interesting writing.

You stare at a screen for words to come. The backspace key becomes your best friend as the minutes tick away. Nothing seems to be perfect for you. An idea is like a worm you try to put on a hook to use as bait for fish. When you think you got it, its grasped firmly between your thumb and index finger it somehow squirms away. Where does my story start? Perhaps the better question is where does it end.

The world changes in a day

Images courtesy of:
Cherryflava














cherryflava

The New Democratic Way

I'm going to make a prediction to who will become the next President of the United States. That person will be a republican and either will be Rudy Guiliani, Fred Thompson or perhaps John McCain (small chance).

The democrats have already lost. Their road to 2008 already seems done because it's obvious who they are choosing: Hillary Clinton. She now has over 50% of the vote with dems in most polls and is creating enough distance between her and Obama that it's obvious the democratic elite believes their best chance to capture the White House is with Hillary Clinton. Don't mind that half of the democrats distrust her and has major credential issues with her run to win Senate years ago and is the easiest target on the right, the democrats have put their stamp of approval on her.

This is a new dilemma. In previous elections, it was the republicans who would have primaries be semi races before the elite chose who they felt had the best chance and put all stock into that person. Each constituent put whatever grudge against them to the side and supported that candidate in the idea it was greater to have a republican in the White House than a democrat. The problem with the democrats is that they didn't have this order. Constituents were bogged down by issues and each primary would be a major fight to see who could survive all the interests the party had. Party members were less likely to just support who was popular, but the republicans were. This allowed republicans to have sophisticated campaigns because everyone was on board early on for who should win and what was important - before the person was even nominated.

Now the democrat's have essentially done this and the republicans teeter between three candidates who swing back and forth in polls. The party elite prefer Thompson because of his social stances, but he hasn't made the steps yet to overtake Guiliani who's so confident of a victory that he is already focusing on his match with Hillary.

But should he really be concerned with her? I don't think so. She is the most visible candidate out there and leads because of that. She also has raised the most money of anyone. The democrats believe this will be enough, but she is still a polarizing figure. She never has been good with speeches and will likely be reminded of all her past failures. Obama comes from the Senate but has such a bare history in voting that he has little scandal to hide. Hillary has an entire closet full. And in the competition of speeches, there is none. Magazines were writing about Obama's excellence in the area before he even ran for Senate. He was earmarked THAT early for the White House.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope Obama makes a push. I prefer him in politics and in the larger battle of democrats versus republicans. Hillary, I don't think, has a chance. She's too conflicted with scars, but Obama has hope and talent.

The Britney Spears fascination

I really don't care what ultimately happens to Britney Spears. It's just because I watch the news I am exposed to the constant updates of her insane dilemma. Part of myself is fascinated, but not because I feel a great humane story is on show here. Her children are in a most unfortunate situation but she herself seems opportunistic even in her descent to what looks like will be an ugly end.

There is something more to her situation though. In the world of celebrity today exists the importance of publicists. They are everywhere and hired by everyone to keep clients (aka celebs) out of tabloid magazines in disgraceful moments such as the one Britney Spears finds herself in everyday. Paparazzi is everywhere, but the job of the publicist is to keep things private. It happens because more clubs and resorts have become private. The Hard Rock Hotel in Vegas is opening an exclusive bungalow resort only for celebs seeking absolutely privacy. The world is trying to help celebs avoid paparazzi. Publicists are those who guide the celebs to do so.

Publicists haven't always been around. The days of Hollywood were much more open with their endeavours years ago when almost all stars had some kind of public substance abuse problem. The abuse became so embarrassing that many celebs couldn't do simple interviews without being intoxicated. A famous interview done by Roger Ebert in 1971 for Playboy Magazine had Ebert interviewing Lee Marvin. Whatever objective Ebert had to get Marvin to open up about his career was lost when Marvin was reduced to a muttering drunk. Marvin went on to make insinuations he impregnated his secretary and that Paul Newman wouldn't give a fifteen year old girl an autograph, but would buy her a drink. The interview ended with Marvin yelling at that same secretary to go to out to pick up more booze.

It's a really funny interview, but it was the end of an era. Ebert today says the interview was the last one of any major celeb before publicists controlled images of their clients. I've looked for other interviews like this but they don't exist anymore with large celebs. The world of Hollywood was cleaned up as far as public image goes. Behind the scenes I'm sure things remained the same, but the Britney Spears and paparazzi fascination says those days of public indecency may be coming back. The publicists can try to stop it, but the celebs who are seeking immediate attention, just want it too much.

The sports paradox of parallel universes

I'm not high but this just came to me this morning.

Are infinite amount of parallel universes possible? Perhaps, but a parallel universe can't exist if matter cannot logically occupy that space. How is this possible. Let's call this one the sports paradox. Now imagine a sports ultra dynasty not the Montreal Canadians or New England Patriots but a team that never loses, EVER. Imagine for a second that in a few of the infinite amount of universes this is the case. I believe this is logically impossible since a team that NEVER loses would result in the league folding due to lack of competition.

Now consider that every parallel universe splits into infinitely many parts on an increment of infinitely small amount of time. Meaning for instance that every nano-micro-super-small amount of time results in matter filling an infinite amount of different combinations of space, each of which splits into it's own universe.

The above reasoning would mean that a universe where a sport team will never lose is never going to form. This can be demonstrated easily. Imagine theres a team lets say the Chicago Cubs, that never lose. Well this is impossible not only because it's been a hundred years since the last world series win but because it's an almost certainty a league can't possibly sustain a non-losing team all else being equal. This would mean all the events leading up to the formation of that league and team cannot happen . Moreover the matter that splits off to form that universe where a winning team will one day develop cannot happen since I assume a single instance of a parallel universe (matter) will follow a given time line. There you have it at least one parallel universe can't exist.

Does this mean infinite parallel universes are not possible? Well, there could be an infinite amount of parallel universes where a team ALWAYS wins, but that does not rule out the possibility of an infinite amount of universes where this is not the case and they can exist. It likely comes back to the logic of infinity.

P.S. By team and league I refer to organized sustainable leagues like MLB, NHL, ECHL, etc... Infinite possibilities of teams means there might a team like the Detroit Tigers but there might be a similar parallel team like the Detroit Machines, or Detroit Thumb Suckers, (in theory).

Anyway, this is my original idea for today and I hope someone can find a flaw in this argument.

Why I dislike Soccer

Note: This post was written last July during the World Cup.

Alright, I can now officially say why I dislike soccer besides saying its boring. I have watched every game I could in this World Cup when I ignored it completely back in '02.

Soccer kills itself by how important the yellow and red cards are in each match. Players flop down at every chance they feel a collision with another player is possible. They do this as well in the NBA to draw fouls, but drawing a foul in the NBA isn't as game deciding or as tournament deciding as in soccer. France won their match against Portugal for lucking out on getting a penalty kick. I think the United States was screwed out of some decisions that cost them their games against Italy and Ghana. They lost too many good players on bad calls. It creates an atmosphere of making the flops as dramatic as possible. I remember when the United States was playing Italy that I wasn't hoping for a goal at the end. I could tell their players were too tired. I was hoping one of them gave a miraculous flop in the right area and would be able to get a penalty kick from it. Yellow cards shouldn't decide games the way they do. Hockey is very much like soccer. I say soccer needs to calm down with the infractions and start becoming more like hockey.

Ah, I'm also an American. A typical American for that matter. Green Bay Packer training camp holds much more interest for me than the World Cup has. A few days ago, I was getting my lap top fixed and the two technicians were discussing the World Cup. They were relatively my age or younger. I joined in with discussion on who I thought would win it all. When I asked them about their thoughts on other sports, they immediately got arrogant by saying how Americans will never understand the brilliance of soccer and blah blah. Fine, but I could also tell they were the types that were chewed up in high school sports. Football would have killed them. Thus soccer rules because it is the one high school sport where you can have 5 atheletic guys on a field and also 5 dorks and still have a winning team. Thats why soccer moms flourish everywhere. Of course, only in America.

Greggary Peccary Gets Philosophical

Hello Teenage America. This is Greggary Peccary, the Trendmonger (tm) and today's blog was supposed to be tips on shoe shopping. Well, since I had such an overwhelming response at the idea of shoe shopping tips, I'll give a few out to those who were so adamant about them. Here they are:

1. Buy shoes that fit.
2. Buy shoes you like.
3. Buy shoes you can afford.

No, no, we here at "Today Crumbles Away" have many purposes as far as this blog goes. Kevin Pearson tends to ramble about personal issues, and the larger ramifications of the different overriding concepts of his life. Moltov Cocktail tends to blather on and on about different pop culture events, or vague concepts. I tend to issue stupid and farcical mumblings that purport to be funny, or at least smile worthy. This variety of approaches is nice, and it helps delineate our different personalities well. What happens, however, when I, Greggary Peccary, formerly the Greatest Living Human (overtaken by the new Fat Baby of Russia, leaving me in contemptible second place) is in a different mood than is normally associated with the trendmonger columns? The two I have posted have been long, paranoid, potentially offensive, vaguely political yet ignorant of the political basics. I vote Democrat because the Republicans bug me. Just like moving firewood.

Okay no more stupid jokes. This is serious. The trends can wait: I know, I know, you, my personal readership need to know what to follow, what to believe, who to trust, and where to eat. I think that can wait another day, don't you? I thought so.

Am I going to get personal here? Will I go into detail about the faults of my personality, my fears, my angers, my neurosis, and my paranoia? My fears are simple:

1. Being Alone Forever
2. Having No Money To Survive
3. Dying Of A Horrible Disease
4. Prison
5. Doing Something To Harm Someone Permanently.
6. Doing Nothing With My Life.

I mean, there are many different levels and fears that branch off from those six base fears. But they underline much of my personality. I am much of a product of my generation in that I am driven by my fears, and almost defined by them. I am also of the generation that generally believes that they are more important, smarter, or more creative than we actually are. I ended that last sentence with a preposition. I can't think of another way to write it. See, there's another one. Life is hard.

I want to be creative. I want to write great stories, beautiful poems, wonderful, diverse, and compassionate music. I want it to touch the people I know and love. Is this egotistical? Of course it is, but since I'm not a religious man, and don't believe in an afterlife, it is my attempt to become immortal. Isn't heaven an ego stroke any ways? You're rewarded for your years of good work by eternal happiness. You supress all your negative urges until you die, and are rewarded. Isn't that greedy, egostical? Egotistical might not be the best word: perhaps greedy works best.

Immortality is impossible, from my perspective. There is no heaven, no hell. Everything will disappear. When the last human being dies, and the books crumble into dust, and the computers malfunction and melt down, who will remember Shakespeare? Nobody. The only thing that could potentially live on are the radio and television signals that get shot into space, as they can go for millions and millions of miles, but eventually they will hit something, and reflect. Eventually, over billions of years, these signals will be no more.

Of course, we could have an "Einstein" view of things, which is basically that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So when I die, and my body rots, my nutrients, my energy, will become one with the earth, and in this way I will be immortal. Sorry if that doesn't really give me much comfort: the idea of living on in the belly of a million worms, which in turn feed a million birds, is too abstract to be a comfort. What do I care that my matter survives? What makes us human is not our matter but our conciousness. Where does that go when the body rots? Does it go into the belly of worms? Is it reborn in a new creature, be it man, beast, or plant? Or does it echo around the universe, exploring the places it wants to go, viewing the nebula's, stars, and galaxies of the infinite universe? This last option comforts me the most, but it's also the least likely.

Sorry about that kids. Didn't mean to depress yourself (or myself!). Next time I will have some catty things to say about celebrities and Russia.

The trials and tribulations of the six year graduate

This is the bad way of finding out how much your interests mean to you: you grow up in a small city within a rural area of the country. For 15 years of your life, everything is squeaky clean. You're too in the moment of just being a kid to not know what is out in the world. Then life throws you for a loop. You develop a hobby. Not just any hobby, but one that is best nurtured in a very large city. The days of pure enjoyment turn into dreaming for a new locale.

For the first three years, you manage. You think about all the years you have to make what you want a reality. You find out you have enough going for you where you are to stay busy and somewhat enthusiastic about things. Then the next few years become harder because college enters your life and makes you even more aware of what the world has to offer. You begin to shed the skin you had in high school that was nothing but confusion and college gives you direction. In my case, it gave fuel to a fire in what I wanted to do.

Then a few years later you're in my shoes. You're an upcoming college graduate after only six years! The fact sometime bothers you but you're happy anytime you hear of somebody famous who also took six years to get their bachelors. My man Tony Kornheiser! You're glad you went to community college for expense sake, but wish you didn't take so many bullshit classes just because they sounded cool.

The transfer after three years helped. It helped a lot! It gave me freedom and allowed me to be comfortable to living alone and being away from my family. The thing is it's not enough. The college I was transferred was a mere hour and a half away. The comfort, I guess, is that my family is still close. The problem is that I am still far away from everything. Everything that drives my ambitions and everything that excites me.

Now life has become excruciating. I see the comfort of routine and small town life as a good thing and not the end of the world. I see how it would be good to just get the headache of bills out if I could settle into a good paying job with nothing to further push me into debt. College loans are huge. Not price wise considering I stayed local, but figuratively. I always think if I don't get into a graduate school I have a six month leash in which to quickly decide what I will be fine doing for the rest of my life. The problem is that I can see myself being OK with some choices as long as I have my hobby, but I doubt I'll get that job. The job market is so bad that a job at McDonald's is even a race.

The point is that I need to get out. I need flair and excitement. It's a personal story, but it relates back to everyone. College is fun and all. People say the best times because of the limitless freedom and zero responsibility, but it's a hazy period. Confusion about who you are becomes to subside, but questions of what you will do become even greater. The answers seem like obstacles instead of just answers. Everyone wants what you want. Your first thought is that some way, somehow, you'll luck out. I think that sometimes. But I also bet other people do as well. I believe the longer I take to finish school is a sign I have absolutely no clue what I want to do.

I'm hanging on to a few dream theories, but reality seems to hold more struggle than hope. So says the six year graduate....

Growing Boundaries to creativity

The days of the pony express are long gone. Information can now reach the furthest places on Earth in less time then it takes for me to get up and piss. While this phenomenon of technological expansion is, of course, centered on wealthier to middle countries, it is important to consider the constantly growing body of creativity that is produced within those countries. By "creativity" here I am referring to intellectual property such as text, art, music, and practically any other medium that is conceived by an individual as an "original idea." It's important to note that the concept of original idea is something in itself that warrants a discussion. What exactly is an original idea, and even can there be such a thing nowadays? For the process of simplification and laziness I will leave the original idea concept alone and focus my ramblings on property rights as limitation to creativity.

The biggest threat to creativity stems from the need to restricts rights to creative works. On the outside this may seem logical, sophisticated even. Preventing people from profiting of a work created by an individual without the individuals consent is clearly half of the motivation required to create (outside of pure talent, which only goes so far in putting bread on the table), in which the other is financial gains. In the real world it's not that simple though, not much is. An extremely complicated set of guidelines existing to oversee intellectual property rights is proof of that. Where once upon a time creative work went from the creator to the consumer with relatively few intermediaries now their is waves of publishers, producers, distributors, and so on all with a stake in the financial success of a piece of work. This naturally creates the motivation to establish strict copyright laws since many peoples income depends on the work.

The genius of Walt Disney lies in his ability to burrow from existing works to create something his own. Mickey Mouse was derived from a cartoon that came before called "Steamboat Willy." This is creativity at work and this is where the battle ground lies in intellectual property. I believe the copywrite system empowers the middle man as well as greedy creators of work who attempt to prevent any inkling of inspiration from their work in the production of derivatives. For instance the RIAA sued the girl scouts for singing songs around the campfire, http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2003/feature_zittrain_julaug03.msp

As long as there are such difficult barriers to entry in the creative field, one in which new artists cannot burrow existing ideas or are sued if they do I fear a decline in the body of creative work. Creative work that both innovates and appeals as well as offers the creator compensation that is not in the form of royalties for building of others' work. Even the average individual should be aware of the limitations placed on them by intellectual property rights since they are not excluded from lawsuits simply by not making money of the questionable creative material that they produce.

A line however must be drawn between what is actually plagiarism as opposed to interpretation. Piracy is clearly wrong. I personally don't agree with the way the music industry handles this issue nor the attack they cast against file sharing networks, the epitome of idea exchange in the 21'st century. Moreover the exorbitant prices of music, like $13 for a CD or $.99 for a song puts music out of the hands of individuals who are even capable of paying that much when, opportunity cost, is taken into account. These facts help justify the rampant piracy on college campuses even if they don't make it acceptable.

There is good though that is coming out of the greed of those taking advantage of the current property right system. The free culture movement release works into a public domain, for others to use. Organizations such as Creative Commons offer free licenses to creators of work that vary in the level of rights they give to the public.Other licenses like the BSD licence and the Free Art License aim to achieve the same independence from the restrictive intellectual property licenses and the "all rights reserved," provision.