Pirate Society

So,
in my final pre-Lost blog, I just wanted to touch on what has ruined our society. Yes, this is the long awaited entry about pirates. Before I get into it for real-sies, I just wanted to distinguish between internet pirates and CD pirates or as I like to call them white collar pirates, and puffy shirt pirates. I don't care about white collar pirates or about how Metallica is suffering at their hands. I prefer Radiohead for not being such a baby about the whole thing.

So, back to real pirates. Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but... we all know pirates from the grand adventures they take us on such as Treasure Island 2, Pirates of the Caribbean, (the Disney ride,), and Goonies, but pirates were not the cuddly figures that we have become so accustomed to (those were gremlins). In fact, pirates were rather merciless and brutal with their prey, which includes their human prey as well as the English. I'm not going to burden you with facts or figures that represent how many lives pirates have affected, or how much financial damage they have committed over time. But, let's guess that both are in the thousands. According to the great supercomputer known as Wikipedia, the Barbary Pirates, North African pirates, alone (who the United States fought its first "war" against) sold over 1 million of their captured prisoners into slavery. Although this was during the classical period of piracy... (yes, apparently piracy has a classical period,) this is not the romanticized notion of the pirates, which is more of the burning and killing variety.

Pirate ships, would often start out as a British ship that would mutiny under harsh conditions and throw their captain in the brig solely for the crime of failure to prevent a mutiny (thank you Zap Brannigan). These rabble-rousers would then offer their ship up to the local buccaneers. Privateers, to use the politically correct term, were pirates with a get out of jail free card because the governments used appeasement strategies towards pirates, allowing the sacking of the ships of other nations, so long as the pirate would steer clear of that country's ships.

So, society has idealized these pirates because they lived without rules and anarchy has become such an underground youthful idea that our society has embraced the freedom of it all. But, you know what? These guys were robbers, murderers, slavetraders, they tortured their victims, and these guys were the bad guys in a time when everyone was kindof a bad guy, so yes, they are off the charts bad guys by today's standards. But, what happens next, after Robin of Sherwood Forest and Captain Jack Sparrow get to be famous heroes? Well, then we have cowboys like Billy the Kid becoming heroes. Soon after we get Michael Corleone as one of the great heroes of our time. It is a natural progression to have Nino Brown as a national hero. All of these people are considered "cool" within the modern lexicon because of their resistance to conforming to the norm and creating their own world view and power structure that operates under rules they create. And what about Echo, the warlord hero from Lost or Dexter from Dexter? How long before we have terrorist heroes and people are wearing the terrorist version of the skull and cross bones as necklaces and playing terrorist videogames? 100 years? 20 years? 5 years?

I have frequently compared pirates to the Nazis as they were the feared looming force of their time and they operated with out any ruth at all. But, that is not fair to either of these notorious groups because really they operated on different levels of government and with different agendas. The Nazis were a state controlled government that sought to spread their horrid hateful ideas throughout the world, so that structure was more like Soviet and Chinese communism and or the various forms of authoritarian governments around the world. Pirates were more like mobsters or gangsters because they banded together to rape and pillage and steal for their own interests. Some of them were forced into the trade because of various pressures, but ultimately these thugs committed atrocities as part of the group. (Side note: terrorists (in theory) are a mixture of the two, with ideological goals rather than material goals like fascism or communism, but using corporate social structures and not bounded to one national homebase, but rather fluid homebases like large organized versions of smaller time crooks. And that's why I don't like using terms like a war on terrorism because terrorism is more like (usually international) crime, and then we are back to the old euphemisms like a war on crime and war on drugs. And though terrorism is a serious problem that needs to be addressed with a firm hand, it's resolution is not likely to be achieved with annihilation or a conventional truce/peace treaty, (provided we win,) it is more likely to be dragged about like any and all other crimes, including the ongoing crimes of piracy around the globe. That is not to say that terrorism or any crime should not start a war with another nation, because that is a different notion entirely, but fighting terrorism is not fighting a nation, it's fighting a groups united by a method.)

So, at some point, pirates became a joke because as Mel Brooks says, "comedy is just tragedy plus time," and people started laughing at the silly pirates for their funky puffy shirts, their eye patches, and peg legs (honestly my high school's team name, the Peglegs,) or laughing at Nazis singing and dancing with a flamboyant Hitler leading the way, or a Chapelle show slaveowner trying to boss around 21st century gangstas with guns. These people are kind of funny when they are not attacking you because as Woody Allen said, "tragedy is when I stub my toe; comedy is when you fall down a sewer and die," and pirates have not directly affected our lives. So, after we have a few laughs at their expense, we start to think this group was not so bad and they have been picked on historically harshly for their physical deformities and their medical conditions, like scurvy or whatever. Then, we magnify the grandness of their deeds and all of a sudden, these pirates are the good guys, and the bad guys are the rest of society, (see Star Wars or if you'd prefer Serenity, which gratifyingly defends a civil war, similar to the American Civil War, without the racism.) Then, the same thing happens with drug dealers, drug lords, and war lords, with mafia dons, street gangsters, and crime-syndicate kingpins, with cowboy outlaws, rebel fighters, and terrorists, with spree killers, assassins, and serial killers.

Now that the terorist methods don't shock us much anymore such as the targetting of civilians, and with the moral equivalency that has been created equating all lives with those of civilians because life is life (I saw the headline on a major news network website, paraphrased "4 Israelis, 2 Palestinians die in bus explosion" after they were already reporting the two Palestinians that died were the bombers). How far fetched is it to say that terrorists will be heroes in movies soon or that people will have Al Zawahiri shirts like Che shirts are worn now. In our fast paced globe, these things are prone to happen, and happen quickly. And who do I blame for this? Can I blame Hollywood or the media or big corporations for glamorizing the life of crime? Should I blame the government or the parents or technology for failing to shield us? Will I blame the clergy or society in general or the professionals who defend them, heal their wounds, and advocate for them? I'm going to take a novel approach and say the blame belongs, not with the people who air the program or don't turn it off, but with the people who do the wrong. And of all the wrongdoers in history, and there were many, (possibly in the hundreds), I blame the pirates most of all, for being adequately vicious and sinister, but more importantly uproariously hilarious and comical.

So, no, I don't want your facebook application that applauds the pirates and their devil-may-care lifestyle or for their cruelty and glamorizes the world of crime. And, I don't want any of your similar applications. Seriously, don't get me started on zombies. What good have they done for the world?

But, really, where does that leave me? In a world where everyone is to blame except the blameworthiest? In a world where our heroes are of the flawed variety, often not just the under-dog, but the person overcoming a troubled history. There is little glory left for the Maximuses of the world who were always pure of heart and remain pure of heart until his valiant end. But, wait... didn't he and a band of rebels fight to overthrow the empire? Man, the world sure was confusing two thousand years ago. Pirates, man, they mess everything up.

Thanks for listening,
ME Papa Bear

Not Lost

Hi people,

I am wasting some time before Lost starts this week. So, I watched the lame State of the Union Address, which would be way better if they could turn it into some sort of a competition. I rewatched the highly entertaining Gossip Girl first episode. It was nice seeing the character's evolve and how Dan Humphrey stayed pretty much the same, much like Chandler and Xander and from what I could tell, the Adam Brody character from the OC (but I never watched that, cause it seemed like it was a show for teenage girls). I was also impressed with my first viewing of Samantha Who? which was funny and touching, but the plotline of the episode was father-daughter relationship, which always touches me.

Then, I was rewatching the underrated subtly hypnotic Lady in the Water, which was masterfully created from iys enchanting score to the methodical camera movements. It was Paul Giamatti's finest performance, soulful and witty, unlike his acerbic and nebbishy portrayal of the Sideways and American Splendor characters. However, the twist in the movie was unsatisfying in comparison to the overall greatness of The Sixth Sense and the perfectly crafted, though not very entertaining, Unbreakable.
Now, M. Night Shyamalan's style is now clearly prononounced. He would have to be one of the few modern auteurs with his own unique directorial styles, alongside, Burton, Kevin Smith, Spike Lee, Sofia Coppola, Joss Whedon (I know he shouldn't count, but I'm counting him anyway), a couple of those Spanish directors, and Tarantino. I feel like I'm leaving a few people out, but I look forward to seeing a lot more from these guys.

One guy I'm not seeing much more of is Jason Kidd, of basketball fame, because he has finally come forth and vocally requested a trade (after three years of having his agent request trades). Unlike the Bryant complaint, Kidd has the clout to have his trade request granted while still being "expendable" enough to allow a trade request to yield some positive results for the team. So, I bid him a fond farewell with as much respect as I can muster for a guy who isn't satisfied making his $20 million a year in a great location (the New York area, not New Jersey in particular).

[Warning: The rest of the blog entry is heavilty basketball specific, feel free to avoid the rest of the piece today if you have no interest.]

SO, speaking of basketball, I feel like I should unveil my list of MVP candidates at this halfway point. Keep in mind, this is based on how much each of these candidates deserve the award (which of course is based on a combination of how much they add to their team, in terms of wins, how good they are compared to other players in that position and several other favtors), and not just who is the best player (or else Duncan would have gotten my award every year, and my list is not based on who I think the NBA will end up giving the award to. Some people choose the best player on the best team, others prefer the person with the best statistical year, and others look at a combination thereof combined with star power. Defense should be an issue, but if the player's team defense is sufficient, or if their offense is so overwhelming that it overcomes defensive incompetence, then it should not be totally preventative. Thus, Steve Nash's poor defense was possibly overcome by his facillitation of the most potent offense in basketball 2-3 years ago, with his great court vision, creation of a lot of easy scores, and shooting at over 50% from the field (and great free throw and three point percentages), along with very clutch shooting. Still, I probably wouldn't have given him the award (because his team was good offensively without him), but I understand the choice. So, without further ado...

1) LeBron James- ridiculous player, carrying the team offensively, frankly, carrying his team kicking and screaming because they often hinder him. Scouting report: Great court vision, great decision maker, great driving, solid jump shot (this year), clutch shooter, shut down defender when he applies himself (which is pretty rare, but see what he did to Kobe in the fourth quarter of their last meeting). Great leader and never makes a false move on or off the court. Ultimately, he contributes everywhere and is a force of nature every time he decides to take over a game, which is becoming more and more frequent much to the dismay of his opponents. Almost the passing ability of Magic, almost the athleticism of Michael, and almost the strength of Shawn Kemp, with the numbers that are starting to resemble Larry Bird's or Oscar Robertson or whatever he needs to win.

2) Chris Paul- great player, leading an unexpected team to the best record in the West. Great at driving, great passer, good shooter, great on defense, and taking an otherwise mediocre team to the top. The quickness of Isaiah with the passing of Stockton.

3) Kobe Bryant- ridiculous player, leading a well rounded team to near the top of his division. Very aggressive fourth quarter player, and now that he understands a bit more what LeBron has known since his rookie year, that you improve your team by getting your teammates easy shots, he is having his best year as a player. Slightly worse version of Michael Jordan, substantially worse shooting percentage, lower assist numbers, and never LED his team to a win in the playoffs (unless you count the Karl Malone, Shaq, Payton year). But, otherwise he has the same skill set of Jordan with the ferociousness and the drive to match, but the temperment of Scottie Pippen, which might be the more apt comparison, Scottie Pippen with a better jump shot.

4) Kevin Garnett- leading the team with the best record in basketball, while playing efficient offense (he doesn't take over too many games with his scoring ability, perhaps by choice), but is leading this team which would otherwise be average defensively to be great on defense. His intensity is contagious. Not sure there has ever been a player with KG's quickness and intensity, not to say he's better than the other people on this list, just that he's different than any other player before him.

5) Dwight Howard- physically dominant ala Moses Malone, scares people away from driving on Orlando and then turns around and rebounds the ball. His increasing offensive ability (meaning 1 or 2 very solid post moves) in addition to his penchant for getting open right under the basket makes him dangerous. The guy is leading his team towards greatness.

Top 10 other players who should be on the top 5 list for MVP
1) Tim Duncan- injuries, diminished playing time, along with some tough team losses is barely keeping him off the list. But I fully expect him and the team to round out into form soon enough.
2) Dwayne Wade- talent-wise he's there, but he was injured earlier in the year, and he is still a little reluctant to drive into the lane, which is his primary talent (getting to the free throw line).
3) Carmelo Anthony- he's the dominant scorer on the Olympic team and it's not a coincidence, because he's might be the most versatile scorer in ball, but he just looks a little tired and disinterested.
4) Dirk Nowitzki- psychologically scarred from the disastrous loss last year to the Warriors, but still a dynamic talent with great shooting and solid driving moves at his height with good rebounding skills, and average defense and passing skills.
5) Yao Ming- offensively very skilled, with post moves, a great medium ranged shot and great passing skills; defensively occasionally great and occasionally a serious liability.
6) Tracy McGrady- all of the offensive and defensive skills of Kobe Bryant (maybe more) with slightly less effort on and off the court and no playoff series victories to show for it and worse yet, a constant injury risk. Also, nagging back injuries hamper his overall performance even when he plays.
7) Steve Nash- gifted passer, incredible runner and driver, incredible shooter, incredibly clutch, but porous defensively. But, it helps to have such a strong supporting cast, with the running mate Shawn Marion, Amare, Grant Hill, Barbosa, Bell, and Diaw, He deserves a lot of credit, but it's a great team.
8) Carlos Boozer- offensively, he's among the best post players with a variety of moves, a good mid range shot, and tons of physical strength.
9) Amare Stoudemire- a physically powerful and quick player that uses those skills and Steve Nash to rack up points and opportunities.
10) Brandon Roy- the no name team that's competing in the vaunted West is not actually a no-name team. This guy's got something.

Round out the all star teams, not differentiating between conferences or positions,
16) Baron Davis for his offensive abilities,
17) Deron Williams for his Paul-esque leadership,
18) Chris Bosh for his post game,
19) Paul Pierce for his scoring,
20) Ray Allen for his clutch play,
21) Caron Butler for his ascendancy into being a great player,
22) Josh Howard, at times more dominant than Dirk,
23) Jason Kidd, a triple double machine,
24) Andrew Bynum, great offensive potential, already emerging onto the scene

Honorable mention to Al Jefferson (team is just too bad), Stephen Jackson (actually a captain and makes the team better... somehow), Antawn Jamison (first year that he was better than his old teammate AND the person that he was traded for AND his wife's best friend's husband, Vince Carter (and my favorite player)), David West (emerging offensive force) and Tyson Chandler (emerging defensive force), Marcus Camby (still dominant defensive force, while Shawn Marion slipped and Andre Kirilenko vacillates), Jose Calderon (what a duo when T.J. Ford returns), Hedo Turkoglu (outperforming any of the old Sacramento players and any of the current Kings players who are playing pretty well despite injuries). I would also include a Michael Redd and Kevin Martin if I needed shooters for the Olympics and if it were the Olympics, I would also include Manu Ginobli. Of course, I would give lots of props to Tony Parker for his quickness and floaters down the lane and improved jump shot, and Detroit's starting lineup (Chauncey, Sheed, Rip, Prince, and McD) as solid players on defense and offense. Charlotte and Atlanta have some nice young players too. But overall, the state of the National BA is strong.

Most disappointing players
1) Gilbert Arenas- despite incredible talent, he is actually detracting from his team this year. Go figure.
2) Jermaine O'Neal- the guy is at least very talented defensively, (in addition to offense), but where has that been?
3) Ben Wallace- I give him the edge over struggling center Shaq and over all his fellow teammates because his effort (which was his primary asset,) is down, so he is really delivering nothing.
4) Zach Randolph- even though his numbers are fine and the Knicks are not really worse than they were last year, this is more a tribute to the failure of the Eddy Curry- Randolph experiment to have two post scorers that don't play defense.
5) Miami- forget about Shaq. Where are all the other players? I know Zo went down and Wade is injured and Shaq is out, but c'mon... The team is a professional team, they should act like it.

I wanted to say something like the Sacramento stars were disappointing because they have been average despite the absences and injuries of the stars. Sacramento has been doing pretty fine without Ron Artest or Bibby or Martin in large part to a great coaching job by Reggie Theus who can't get the coach of the year because of a lack of wins (unlike Doc Rivers who shouldn't get it because of too little of his own influence on the team). But given that they have played better since the stars came back, I can't say that.

Other Mid-way point awards:
Defensive Player of the Year, Kevin Garnett over Marcus Camby.
Rookie of the Year, Kevin Durant over Al Horford
Coach of the Year, Byron Scott (NO Hornets) over Nate McMillan (Portland T-Blazers).
Most Improved Player, Andrew Bynum over David West.
Most like ME (Mark Ellis), Monta Ellis over Andre Miller.

Also, top 10 centers of all time just for fun:
1) Bill Russell- defensive slatwart, solid offensive skills, and consumate champion, the Joe Montana, or dare I say, the Tom Brady of basketball, with 11 championships with at least two sets of totally different personnel.
2) Wilt Chamberlain, the most dominant offensive force in basketball history, able to score 100 in a game (average 50 points a game for a season), and had another season where he declined physically, so focused on assists, and averaged 10 assists a game for a season, and managed to eke out 2 championships around the Russell era.
3) Shaq- a dominant physical presence, probably the strongest player ever, with remarkable quickness. He was a powerhouse on defense punishing the drivers and shutting down his opponent, and won 4 of his 6 NBA finals.
4) Duncan- Fundamentally sound basketball player who does whatever is required of him, great floor leader on defense, 1 on one defender, and team defender, great post moves, great decision maker and passer, great mid-range shooter and essentially does whatever is required to win the games, leading to 4 titles in 4 finals attempts on at least totally different sets of personnel.
5) Kareem Abdul Jabbar- steadiest greatness on offense out of anyone in this field with sky hooks and the like. Burdened with great teammates like Magic and Worthy and Oscar Robertson that cloud his otherwise incomparable career statistics (and a nice amount of championships, 6 of them).
6) Hakeem Olajuwon- the quickest player on this list with clutch play, great shuffles, post moves and a decent shot, while playing great quick defennse, and two championships snuck into the Jordan era.
7) Moses Malone- who is keeping this spot warm for Dwight Howard and/or Greg Oden, was a physical presence who outmuscled and outhustled everyone for rebounds. Paired with Dr. J, he did get a championship.
8) Patrick Ewing- a dominant defensive force who used his height and athleticism to reach balls all over the court. His offense was excellent, but he was hurt by the fact that he was such a great outside shooter because he came to rely on it over the post moves. Still, his skill and his longevity place him high on this list. No championships for him, but he got to the finals twice.
9) David Robinson- probably the most fluid athlete on this list with a good outside shot and great defensive skills. He won two championships, but the first one was Duncan's credit and the second was Duncan's credit.
10) George Mikan- my understanding is that he was a great inside scorer and the innovator of a number of moves including the hook shot.
10a) Supposedly Arvydas Sabonis belongs high on this list and based on what I've seen in his Portland days when he was already broken down physically, I tend to agree. With his incredible array of post moves, large stature, great three point range, and solid defense (even against Shaq in his prime), had he played in the US earlier, he might have been able to crack the top 5, though I really have no idea how he would compare to these guys, so I am keeping him as 10a.
10b) Bill Walton- great scorer, passer, and wily champion, but his pique was so short, I can't justify putting him ahead of others on this list.
10c) Robert Parish- crafty player whose longevity and solid play was not punctuated by a particularly strong pique, so I could not justify putting him ahead of the others on the list.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Without further, adieu,
ME

Noble Experiment

Hey y'all,

so I finally saw the film Cloverfield the other day and I have a few things I would like to share about the movie without giving any spoilers away. First off, the handi-cam was very shaky and while it provided a little (very little) extra "realism", it provided a lot of extra nausea. Though, I would say, it detracted from the movie overall, I'm glad the movie was trying something new, even if nothing else from the movie was really new. But, yes, cross that off the list of future projects, no more big special effects movies shot on hand held cameras. I got a small taste of it in Blair Witch and it was cool, and I got a little more of a taste for it in Black Hawk Down and it was not cool, and now I think we've (I mean I) had our (I mean my) fill. (And contrary to the popular opinion, I did not enjoy the shakiness of the camera-work in the Bourne Ultimatum and it made me physically ill.) If you want to try something new that's not so new, let's bring back to smell-o-vision.

On an unrelated note, but a legitimate tangent about the nature of the beast and animal nature, is it just me or are dogs getting more brazen and bold? They are now peeing in the middle of the sidewalk and in the middle of the streets, when they used to go only on the walls, trees and fire hydrants. I'm not mad; frankly I'm impressed. No, actually, I'm a little mad. To be fair, more irritated than mad. And dog owners (or whatever the proper term is) for some reason choose my building as the optimal spot to relay their dog's waste. It's as if my building calls out to dogs everywhere, come here and go here. Worse yet, the owners are proud that their dog chose my building and think I should be excited about the discharge. They smile at me politely as their dog defiles my stoop. I smile politely back, because what else am I going to do? Avenge my building with a snide comment? I've never come up with anything good enough. So, my building's entrance still smells like poopy.

Speaking of poo and of New York being ravaged, the Cloverfield follows in a long proud movie tradition of New York destructions. And each of these films have had some sort of biblical analogy about Sodom and NY being chosen for its evil ways. Even movies like the Day After Tomorrow, which was an environmentalist propaganda piece, was meant punish NY, specifically, and the US, in general, because of our evil environmental ways. King Kong punished us for our obsession with spectacle and by providing an ultimate spectacle. Of course, Godzilla punished humanity for the hydrogen bomb, but notably did not target NY. (The remake with Broderick did attack New York, but not nearly as much as the remake of The Producers attacked NY.) But, in Cloverfield, the antagonist likely chooses NY because it's particularly bright (in terms of wattage, not intellect,) and thus NY would provide an ample food source for the behemoth. This end of NY scenario punishes us for being scientifically viable, but science ultimately saves us. Which is yet another thing, I respect about the Cloverfield. I guess another movie in this tradition was Independence Day, but that movie was great for many reasons, so I don't want to compare the two movies and thus belittle Cloverfield's minimal accomplishments... but man, were they minimal.

I also just read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which I had heretofore not read and it is extremely funny, hilarious at times. But, I was concerned that the book tried too hard to be funny by throwing every comedic device Adams could think of into the book. In so doing, the book sacrificed a little of my empathy for an otherwise relatable character in Arthur Dent, who I can only picture as Tim from The Office (British version) and the fluffer in Love Actually. I saw the movie first and felt Martin Freeman and Zooey Deschanel brought life to the characters and the fact that they had a four dimensional relationship added to the book. Most of the jokes were funnier in the book, of course, but the story was better in the movie. And ultimately, I am of the belief that a story makes a movie. To those of you who think I am being sacrilegious for attacking a masterpiece, I am not disrespecting Adams, he co-wrote the screenplay.

Also, I wanted to touch on the Obama South Carolina victory, and kudos to him for standing up to Hillary on the experience issue for once. Her experience fighting for change was being on the board of wal-mart. No offense to the fine company, but that's not part of any 35 years of political experience. And I wanted to note that the media and the Clintons are relatively effectively diminish the South Carolina victory as a Black state, rather than stressing how well Obama did among young people or even that Hillary lost the White vote too. And his victory gave us another dominant victory speech. Also, the impending decline of the Rudy campaign is leaving me with two candidates in the race. I have some reason to believe that a McCain-Obama debate would sincerely be about the issues, and not Clinton-Bush political tactics. But, as long as one of them wins, I'll have something to root for. But, wouldn't that be refreshing? A debate where people are not trying to insult each other, or doubt the other candidate's intentions? A debate where they each acknowledge the integrity of the other candidate, but only argue the very different visions for the future? Now, that would be a noble experiment. But, it might come off as soft or boring or it might make me nauseous, but it's definitely worth a try. And can we make it happen? "Yes we can."

Marked,
Papa Bear

Superbowl Fever

Dear Superfans,

I wanted to start by saying that Heath Ledger's loss was untimely and must be tragic for those who knew him and care about him personally, but even for mere movie fans everywhere, his loss was extremely disheartening. Not only was he a young man (in his twenties) with a great deal of promise as an actor, but he had already started to show some of that promise in a variety, a very wide variety of roles, starting with the teen angst film (Shakespeare adaptation), 10 Things I Hate About You where he played the role of mysterious bad boy courts unattainable girl very well. He also played the poor boy who through luck, effort, and wits, has to earn his spot at the proverbial table in a Knight's Tale, (very loose Chaucer adaptation). He also played the valiantly rebellious son of a reluctant warrior in the Patriot (a Mel Gibson from Braveheart adaptation). And many people have pointed to his well acknowledged role in Brokeback Mountain that demonstrated he had the range to play a serious lead, but if you saw Monster's Ball, I think you would have known his acting chops long before. It was at that point, where he stood up to Billy Bob Thornton, both within the movie and as an actor, that his potential was revealed. Moreover, he was about to have his big break, and jump from independent movie star to A list movie star, in the guise of the Joker in the upcoming Batman flick. Now, it will be eerie watching him play the maniacal villain, whether he plays the role perfectly or imperfectly; that movie is now haunted. So, I express my deepest sorrow for those that loved him, and take solace in the many bright years that he gave us.



So, while I don't intend to demean a young man's demise, I do want to give my incites into the football season that is now winding down. I wanted to congratulate Brett Favre for another fantastic season that like so many of his seasons are filled with great question marks, inexplicable flubs, and wondrous magic. This team that for most of the season worked without a go-to running back was forced onto the mythic shoulders of the living legend, who helped carry them to a 13-3 record. Of course, he will be blamed for poor decisions and a poor throw in the freezer bowl that gave the Giants the victory, but to be fair, look at their running game. In cold weather, in harsh climates, running becomes supremely important. Much to their credit, the Giants stuffed Green Bay's running attack and forced Favre to throw the ball just about every time. GB ended up with around 30 yards rushing, which is terrible, but in the cold, it's even worse. So, criticize Favre all you want, not just his numerous interceptions and fatal overtime interception, or even for having almost no passing game after the first half, but I credit the Giants defense for stopping the run, which ultimately put more pressure on Favre then he could handle, particularly with the Giants playing adequately on offense.

Speaking of the Giants offense, Manning had another above average game, which reminded me of a couple of quarterbacks: Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson (not Brady or older brother Manning), which is not what Giants fans want to hear, except that those guys won superbowls too by playing small games. By managing the clock (not turning the ball over) and utilizing the Giants multi-faceted running game, he could use the Giants very good receivers (Plaxico Buress is probably a top 5 receiver in the game and Toomer is a solid secondary receiver) to achieve great things, even in this final game. They won a classic game against the Favre-ettes in the freezing cold, and before that they dispatched of the highly talented Cowboys by limiting Romo, a guy with a heck of lot of moxy, some skill, some leadership, and a down-to-earth personality that will keep him in the playoff hunt for years to come, (but he will have to play well in the playoffs to be the truly great player he can be (in my book)). By limiting Romo, they limited Owens, who is definitely a top 5 receiver in the game (however ornery he is), and Witten who is a very good TE. And they did all this with their steady presence on defense, Strahan hampered, and without a fiery gifted tight end in Shockey (however ornery he is).

But, that having been said, it is my firm opinion that the AFC is much better than the NFC, and whoever emerged from the AFC would be champions. I would favor the AFC even it was the Jaguars who made it to the Superbowl led by Garard, who is a better version of Brad Johnson as their QB, and 2 solid running backs in addition to their physical defense and lines. Indianapolis would have a tough time against the Giants because the Indy D is small and quick and Jacobs could run over them, but Sanders would prevent major flubs on D and the the Indy O is almost as effective as the New England O in that the receivers, when healthy are almost as good and the running back is probably slightly better. Or how about a healthy San Diego with the best TE around, a great defense with Cromartie to guard Moss or Plaxico and Merriman to steroid up the group. Of course, they also have the best RB around (if he plays). I don't blame LT for not playing or for keeping his Darth Vader helmet on throughout the game as he sat quietly on the sidelines saddened by his inability to contribute. My only critique of him is that if he wanted to look like Vader, he should have played for the Empire, his opponent.

No, Belichick is not evil per se, in that he may be a very nice man, good to his family and friends, and a hugely charitable philanthropist. He may be kind to dogs and strangers, and a decent tipper to waiters. I honestly have no idea if he is a budhist monk or a war hero or if he volunteers reading my blog to the blind (although, why would he torture the blind?). But, I do know his football life, and I know his players are among the most physically illegally aggressive (from other players' stories), he was caught cheating by spying (at least twice) [if any otherwise unattainable information was garnered, it would certainly allow him to make better play calls, which would put his team in a better position to stop an offensive play or to know where the other team's defensive holes will be for his own offensive plays, which would in turn give his team a competitive advantage on any given play. How is that not helpful and how is a draft pick a sufficient punishment for that? I don't care that other guys are doing the same thing and have not been caught, we caught him. Should we not punish one speeder because other people are also speeding, see LeBron James. (I would have used murderers or corrupt CEO's instead of speeders, but it would have clouded the issue of letting one person go because other people are doing the same illegal thing.)] Additionally, the guy cuts ties with people who leave his organization like Mangini (not a huge betrayal to leave your job for a promotion somewhere else, is it?), he badmouthed Tony Dungy, and he classlessly ran up the scores against opponents like he bet on "the over" or that New England would beat the spread. So, he is as evil a football coach as we are going to get. Throw in the fact that he has a temper as bad as Parcells with none of the media access and we have ourselves a Star Wars character. The hooded sweatshirt (and tactical brilliance) makes him the ideal candidate for Emperor, working behind the scenes as he puts on the veneer of legitimacy, while his minions ravage the other team. Now, who would his shiny apprentice be, would he be a coach or a player that unquestioningly follows the emperor's orders? Would he be a guy who wears fancy duds and is the face of the Empire? Would he inspire fear in all his enemies with his inhuman skill and cold, calculating demeanor, which manifests into brilliant ability whenever required? I am a fan of Brady as much as the next non-Pats fan, but I really like how this analogy works.

The real question is: can the golden locks and the boyish {cough} charm of Eli Manning play the foil to Brady's cool dark veneer? Keep in mind, Vader won the first fight against Luke pretty easily. But, these two teams have also played before. By the way, I would totally make Parcells Yoda in this way over extended metaphor. And, New England's defense is stacked with playmakers from Asante Samuel to Bruschi to Adalius Thomas to Vrabel to Harrison to Colvin. And their O line is solid not letting people pressure Brady. The RB situation is satisfactory and the receivers are extraordinary with Moss, the most talented (and second best receiver) of all time leading the pack with great height extraordinary athleticism and great hands. Wes Welker is an incredibly speedy and steadfast slot or 3rd down receiver and Stallworth who is extremely talented and will get open if the other teams over protect Moss and Welker. This receiving core with its additions of Sammy Morris and a smattering of other receivers is better than Warner's Bruce and Holt combo and is slightly better than the Harrison, Wayne, Stokely, and TE combos that gave Manning the record a few years back, which probably makes it the best all time (and better than the Moss Carter Minnesota receivers). I can't vouch for the receivers of yesteryear, even Rice's receivers, and I know the rules have changed, the training regimens have changed, and various events have changed making comparisons difficult, but the highest QB TD total in an outdoor stadium team is telling of something. Yes, Brady and P. Manning are on a different level than the other quarterbacks playing at their prime playing today, but their protective lines and receivers are special, historically special.

So, you know who I am predicting, but yes, I would be pleasantly surprised to see the Giants win. I wanted to do a Power 15 list like Peter King does in his Monday Morning QB articles for SI, ranking the top 15 football teams, but I didn't want to steal his bit. I do love lists (extra points if someone has the legitimate word for a list-ophile) and though I do like applying the lists to everything (See my list of the 100 greatest geniuses), I particularly enjoy listing things related to sports. So, this list discussion foreshadows an upcoming basketball list of my choosing (yet to be determined) probably 2-3 articles from now.

Superfan #22,
MPBE

PS: New England Patriots 34, New York/New Jersey Giants 21.

On Patience

Hey readers,

So, I had an eventful weekend, spending Saturday, hobbled and whining about my "football" injuries. I put football in quotes because I was injured during the practice beforehand. Worse yet, we were playing shorthanded, so my limited help, however useless, might have been useful.
But, now, I have a pencil taped to my finger and am limping around like I need a cane. But, canes are cool and I don't deserve one.

But, I followed that loss with a unique form of self-punishment, I went to go see There Will Be Blood. Of course, I use hyperbole when I say, I didn't like it (I would actually rate it around average), considering there were a number of entertaining scenes in the movie, and the film was highlighted by a very good performance by perennial over-actor Daniel Day Lewis.
Every three years, when he makes a film, he is almost universally lauded for his over-the-top antics. Well, sometimes it works, and it worked in this very slow movie, where the only entertainment was seeing him on screen. He maintained this "I drink your milkshake attitude" for just about the entire movie, and I appreciated it.

The downfall of the movie was in large part the total miscast of the role of the preacher, who was uneven in his moments on the film, varying from meek, sensual, violent, brave, cowardly, fiery, and greedy. Perhaps, the actor who played the role should have been able to have this range. To be honest, I thought it was refreshing to have a preacher from the early 20th century not played by a Jonathan Edwards-ian Sinners in the Hands of Angry God tirade, but this kid who was great in Little Miss Sunshine, just didn't have the chops to be a rival to Lewis in this flick.

So, recently, I've sat through this movie and No Country for Old Men and Atonement. So, I'm not exactly Gandhi, but these movies have really tried my patience. That's like 14 hours of 9 hours of movie reel.

But, in my hampered state, I hope to see Cloverfield, and imagine what it would be like, limp-running from the movie monster.

And speaking of movie monsters, I wanted to let you know that in my humbled opinion (it's been humbled by years of opinion rejection) the Terminator TV show has so far proven to be an adequate continuation of the series, even as it confuses me about its time travel theories and how Rise of the Machines fits into the myth. But, as with Adam Baldwin and Nathan Fillion, it's nice to see another piece of the Firefly/Serenity crew get her due. But, more importantly, the countdown to Lost continues.

Enjoy your Martin Luthor King Jr. holiday, and know that I will be at work all day,
PB ME

Cookie Party

Inspired by Chips Ahoy commercials everywhere:

Cookie Daddy: or How to Choose a Cookie
...
Each day, they wait their turn to be taken,
Lined up and pray to be not forsaken.
None know where the removed cookies land,
After life’s defining moment, taken by hand.

But one did not conform and begged for relief.
This fresh cookie doubted wisdom’s good grief.
He spent each of his days drowning in dread.
'Til he asked if there’s more, and his Dad said,

“You can’t make life about things you don’t get
Or think other’s are better; it’s unproven yet.
Look at Old Chip all, spotted and mildewed;
he spent years proud, unchosen, unchewed.

My proudest moment was creating you
and my next one was when I was near due
While you don’t understand; I get life’s test,
I seek purpose fulfillment, which is life’s best.”

While cookie Dad shared a moment with Son,
Son weighed Dad’s longing pride and Old Chip’s fun.
“I don’t need more,” Son lied to himself and laughed.
Soon after, Son watched Man take Dad in life's draft.


To be fair, I recently rewatched Big Daddy, and I also re-heard "Cat's in the Cradle" or whatever that song is called, sang by someone, but NOT Cat Stevens. Other than that, I felt like cookies were not adequately represented in poetry. So, take that poetry.

Big Papa Bear,
Mark Ellis

Sleepy Time

Hello all,

So, you ask... how is that you are able to do all of the things that you clearly do and still maintain a blog, logging all of your exploits with precision. My answer is simple, and I whole-heartedly recommend my method to all of you readers out there who are capable of the same feat... I don't sleep. Okay, well, that is a slight exaggeration, but on average, I would say, nowadays, I approximatley sleep about, roughly, three hours and forty nine minutes or so per day give or take (a day is classified as around a 24-hour period). The minimal sleep saves an incredible amount of time, during which you can scarcely do anything active, but you can certainly do something passive. In these wee hours, you can hardly utilize your brain with great functionality, but you can definitely use your fingers, and hence my blog. You could barely muster emotions, but you could easily unleash sarcasm. So, today, I wish to talk about this most auspicious of topics, so vital to so many, and such so onerous to others.

I have had difficulties sleeping for many years, and during the course of that time, it has varied from a difficulty falling asleep to a difficulty staying asleep, and I have landed comfortably on both for now. I have often agonized on theories why this natural process did not come naturally to me, even as I made a number of attempts to rectify the situation in various ways. I can't remember when exactly it actually started, but in high school, it was not a major issue because I was a kid, a dynamo, and even though I would lie around at night perusing yesterday, skimming tomorrow, and figuring out when they merge, it was not a substantial hindrance as I was able to manage the exhaustion the next day. Each morning, I slowly rolled my way back into alertness. In college, the sleeplessness became a larger issue because I would try to accomplish things during those ungodly hours, either studying, drinking, or hanging out; so the next day, I would be extremely fatigued and there would be little respite, as I would repeat my routine daily. So, then I tried "self-medicating" with various forms of alcohol or Nyquil (which is inadvisable according to the warning label). I followed up the self-medicating, with medical medicating, which resulted in similar outcomes, I was even more tired when I went to bed, and because my body, my mind, or my very soul resisted sleep, I was even more tired the next day. I've tried counting sheep and soothing music, I've tried reading and blindfolds, and being tucked in, along with various combinations of methods. The one that worked best was recording myself and listening to myself talk about biology, but it only worked for a short time. Now, unfortunately, I have come to accept the role of sleep in my life as a mere afterthought.

What is it that keeps me awake? Someone said neurosis, someone else said "racing thoughts", someone else said anxiety, and someone else said TV, bad eating habits, and caffeine (with my penchant for diet cola), but while I don't disagree with any of these, I think the answer is much more philosophical. I AM neurotic and I do analyze every aspect of my prior day and every prospect for the coming day, as far as I see fit. So, if you laughed at something that I said, chances are, I am lying around at night trying to figure out why it was funny and what could make it funnier. I am thinking about the meeting tomorrow and what I am actually going to say and what I would say if I were Charlton Heston going into that meeting, and how hard to shake hands with people as I step out of that meeting. I am also obsessive, so I am definitely always thinking about whether doors are locked, whether my mail went out, and whether the stove is off. I am also mildly paranoid, so I remember who was looking in my direction as I was entering my building, waiting for me to leave an unlocked door, who had access to my stove that might have turned it on, (just to mess with me,) and I consider the possibility that the person who gets my mail pretends they never got it. So, I am rarely surprised about anything. I think about grand things like what would be the first thing I did if I had one wish, or, if I had an infinite number of wishes, what would be my first entirely selfish wish? (Maybe my third wish would be something totally selfish). I think about morose things, as I consider what would be the best way to end, (definitely not like the Sopranos), and how my family will cope after I'm gone... and about heavy things like whether I am ready for a serious relationship or kids. I think about language and morals, such as how most adages pretty much teach the same lesson, like "the grass is always greener on the other side" and "don't cry over spilled milk" which have very diverse messages, but both encourage people to understand the positive aspects of what they have.

I think a lot about good and evil. I think about God and whether God has ever actually responded to a prayer, or is just as vane as I was taught God is. And, I consider how much nobler our vision of God and gods have become over time; while they were once animated objects and ideas to be feared, but now we use science, philosophy, or psychology to explain the ills of the world, and God is the remaining idea to explain the good that we don't fully understand. I think about my family alot, and how my Dad always preaches an overarching balance in the world, and how he wrote a whole novel about it, The Balancing Game, even as he credits me for my minimal contributions. So, really, I got this good and evil obsession from him. I think about my mom and how she is an insomniac too, and I wonder what she's thinking about right then. I think about my brother and how proud I am of him and where he is going to be five years from now and where he was five years ago, and my grandfather and what the world was like for him at my age, and what the world will be like for him when I'm his age... and about my cousins and how well they are all doing so far, how much I had to do with how well they are doing, and how I can have more of an impact in their lives. I think about my clients and my co-workers, the facts and the issues, my responsibilities, and my burdens. I think about my friends that I haven't seen for a really long time and if it would still be fun to do all the stupid things we did back then... and about my current friends and how it's amazing that they are thriving despite all the stupid things I've seen them do.

I think about celebrities, and how hot Angelina Jolie would be in person, or how if I met Brad Pitt, I would call him Mr. Pitt like I was a page at 30 Rock (or like Elaine's boss on Seinfeld). I wonder what it would be like to sleep with The Girl Next Door, and whether if the woman is famous enough, it is still uncouth to tell your friends about it (or maybe that makes it even more crass). Of course, I wonder, why would she want me? My answer usually entails me saving her from something, so that becomes my night day-dream, me saving her from something (and the danger varies, because I like to keep it fresh like Walter Mitty). I think about girls and what they don't like about me and how sometimes my "negatives" are exactly the same and sometimes they are polar opposites of what I don't like about me. I think about how the rich get all the advantages and opportunities, but how I don't fault them for that anymore, and how I would want to give the same things to my kids.

But, none of this strikes me as that unusual, and it would be a great explanation for a lack of sleep, except that even though I think about all of these things, I don't feel anything about them. None of these thoughts are fueling any emotions inside me sufficient to keep me awake. I've tried cutting out TV and caffeine for a month, I cut out all meat for a month, and I've attempted regular exercising, and none of those attempts worked, so although it might contribute, my diet and waking practices are unlikely to be the main factors in the sleeplessness. Moreover, I rarely if ever have nightmares anymore, though when I was about 10, I had a recurring nightmare of lights and shapes flying towards me in space, which still haunt me sometimes, but is not a primary cause for my sleeplessness nowadays (I also had a freaky recurring nightmare about finding gold in my grandparent's basement with a secret passageway to Europe where there was a vampire statue, but that's a story for another time. And most recently, I had a nightmare that a family I did not know, tricked me into marrying their daughter in an Eastern marriage ceremony, whence they blackmailed me for $400 and a ride home (to keep our marriage on the DL), and then when I refused to pay, they tried poisoning me with some pills, but I switched glasses, Vezzini style on them, and left them for dead (though unsure if they were dead.) And upon driving back home, I started thinking it was their plan all along to have me switch glasses on them and now they can blackmail me for more than $400. Yep, this is what I have to look forward to, when I do sleep.)

Instead of delving any further, I will tell you my latest theory, that aside from my disdain for yesterday and dread for tomorrow, I actually really can't get enough of today. In that sense I hate tomorrow's lack of now. It's the same reason, I have trouble putting food down because of the indelible urgency of now, as a presidential candidate beautifully phrased it. I'm not afraid of tomorrow; that day day just doesn't exist. It's a figment of our collective imagination and we all blindly proscribe to this notion. There is no tomorrow and there never was one. It's just an idea, but today, now, is right here, and we have one last chance at making the most of it. That is why I watch as much TV as possible, view as many movies as I can, and I am constantly living life to the fullest. Okay, other than first two things, none of the rest of that last sentence was true. But, what is true is that, the idea that this, here now, is not all there is, makes me awfully anxious. And like a child frightened of flying through space, I lay dormant regetting tomorrow for several hours before reluctantly passing out and waking up with a jolt of the new day a few hours before I go to work. Over the next few hours, I regain my faculties, and when I do, I clean myself and start my day. I come home 13 hours later, ready for my next round of TV and movies and postponing the woeful nightmare that is trying to fall asleep for as long as I can. That along with my diet and lack of excercise makes me look older, balder, worn downer, with poorer posture, and ruefully sweaty for a guy who is not yet 28.

So, when you see me walking around all chipper, you should know, that it is not my natural state, it's hard goshdarn work making me look that pretty. So, appreciate it.

Fast asleep,
Papa Bear

ReRunning Entertainment

Reader, my Reader,

So, even though politics season is in full swing, I feel it is important to remember what the politics are all about, so I have decided to dedicate one webisode of the blog per week to why we fight these political battles. And, so you ask, why am I so interested in the politics of the day? Because U.S. politics is about choice. And to me, choice means television. And television has basically been shut off, so I am left grasping at American Gladiators, which is still pretty entertaining, a few special moments on various other television programs, and an overrated 2007 film Ratatouille (which I on-demanded) about a rat that wants to be a chef. If I was a kid, I might have liked this animated film, and if I were a chef, I might’ve enjoyed the passion for the artistry, but overall the journey was not very funny, and the messages were not strongly conveyed, and I did not identify with Patton Oswalt's character. Overall, it was a pretty bland piece of cinematic garbage. It wasn’t bad garbage, but it was disappointing, which brings me back to my original point, which was… I am furious at those dang TV writers.

I don’t really care whether the writers deserve the extra $50 bucks from Internet revenue or the health insurance benefits for their cats, or anything else, but, they should go back to work. If you think about it, a strike itself is pretty much a selfish endeavor. Of course, there are many people who are extremely deserving of more money, improved working conditions, and better amenities, and if they are living a destitute life because the owners or managers are being tremendously unfair, then I can totally understand and respect the right of the workers to strike. Additionally, if someone is dramatically underpaid, such as a group of people who earn minimum wage when they are the driving irreplaceable force behind a successful company or industry. But the writers, like the New York City transit workers, and somewhat like the athletes who strike from time to time are paid sufficiently (handsomely? probably not) for their efforts, and they are upset that they are not being paid the proper value (which they define differently than market price) for their efforts.

The problem with the strike (or a lockout from the manager's perspective) for attaining the desired goals is that it hurts people other than the intended, the owners. Usually, these bystanders can less afford to be hurt then the owners. How am I supposed to have sympathy for writers when they are starving out the set designers?

Writers, in particular, are an unsympathetic group (like in the case of baseball players), because they have a job that nearly hundreds of people dream of. And, it is hard to believe that many people with the same or almost the same amount of talent (unlike baseball players) would not do the job for less money. Of course, there is a calculation that would derive sympathy from even the harsher strike critics, by which if people in a profession are grossly underpaid, woefully undervalued, or in dire poverty, it would thereby be acceptable to harm the other innocents that are depending on the continued regular creation of the product. If the issue is being slightly underpaid or slightly overpaid, then it strikes me as an overreaction and selfish to walk out and leave an entire industry destitute. Mainly, they are not thinking about people like me.

People like me: Non-writers, sure they are hurting the prop guys and the cameramen, and the caterers, and the… I could go on if I knew anything about TV other than the TV Set. I’m not sure if they have the support of those unions, but really who cares if unions support each other, they are helping other unions when they demonstrate the power of unions, they are harming the people in those craft unions. And what if they don’t get the raises or whatever demands they sought, then that union, and all unions lose out, and the individual writers lose out on close to a year’s salary, and the individual non-writer’s lose out on a year’s salary. Try telling that to the camera guy’s kids.

But, most importantly, they are harming me. What about all the people like me out there, for example, me, who have had to suffer at the hands of the tyrannical writer’s union with Tina Fey and her lot of critical essayists ridiculing the entertainment system that we all know and love. What about all of the entertainment I have missed out on? Sure, I take solace in the fact that for every episode of The Office that is being cut from the season, an episode of Two and a Half Men is mercifully being cut as well. But, what about all of that reality TV I am being left with? What am I supposed to do with that? I'm not going to watch it, if that's what you're thinking. So, we need some creative solutions.

How about this? Would anybody even notice if they replayed Friends over with the same dialogue, but changing the the actors and the names of the characters. I wouldn’t. It was a pretty solid show, and good for a laugh with a little emotional attachment to the characters, adequately performed by all the parties involved. But, it was a generic show filled with interchangeable or fungible (a fancy way of saying interchangeable) parts. That having been said, I don’t object to rerecording the whole show. So, someone out there, retool Friends with the high concept of Friends meets Friends, set on the other side of Central Park at a coffeehouse called Central Pork, and hopefully, NBC will replay it. If they outsourced the whole thing to India or Mexico, they can even do it on the cheap and hire "Steven Spielbergo", (the director's Mexican equivalent- a Simpson's reference) to direct. Jack Black and Mos Def are coming out with a similar movie about reshooting all of the major movies of the last several years. Movies are slightly different, because TV shows run out of plot lines, and they are encouraged to use all of the same material that worked the first time.

Well, there you go, so something should be done about the strikes, and to prevent such strikes in general. For example, if unions could work together and strike together, then corporations should be able to strike together because the balance has shifted in another direction. But, rather than resort to multi-lateral negotiations, allowing the corporations to unionize, which would otherwise be referred to as collusion and lead to anti-trust lawsuits, there should be a strike czar. Some professions are not permitted to strike because of safety issues or because of their relative importance to society. For example, police officers or firefighters are not permitted to strike, or air traffic controllers are not permitted to strike because without them, planes would not be able to land (which means that they would not take off, rather than they would fly around forever... or until they ran out of gas and crashed).

So, a strike czar would be in charge of determining whether a certain group of people (or profession) could strike or whether they are not permitted to strike. The job would entail determining whether to assign mandatory arbitration. Then, if arbitration would be assigned, the arbitrators would look to the affordability to the investor/owner/manager/producer and merit of the workers along with all other relevant information. But, the arbitration would not be binding because you cannot force someone to work (See slavery) or a company to maintain its employees (See unemployment); it would mainly be used to decide who should rightly be villified in the court of public opinion. Right now, we are a divided nation, between the red television watchers and the blue television watchers, who respectively believe that the writers should go back to work and stop demanding anything from their employers and the blue TV watchers that believe that the owners are being greedy and hoarding profits. A neutral arbitration would allow us all to hate on one side. It wouldn’t be binding because people can always decide not to work by refusing to work/quitting (which would lead to firings) and/ or refusing to pay/firings (which would lead quitting and lawsuits.)

Moreover, this job, and this level of leadership could not be controlled by the special interest groups because then money would win out and the forces of establishment and the status quo would reign for a seeming eternity (and people would not have a say). It could not be allowed to remain unchecked by the passions of the people because then it would heavily favor the majority of the people, the poorer and more disparaged of the two sides, and it would run the business out of business. So, this kaiser should split the reason and the passion and just operate based on cat-like instincts.

Now, I would like to throw my hat in the ring for a job like this because I have cat-like instincts when it comes to matters of strikes. I knew instantly that the Anthracite Coal Mining Strike of 1902 was a necessary strike and those coal miners deserved some better treatment. Likewise, I can determine when the Boston Police Department needs a raise and are denied the raise, they cannot go on strike because I would rather have unhappy police officers than none (though barely, and I would not want them to be unhappy with me, so my mind can be changed).

Should it be an appointed position? No, because there is too much political posturing and gamesmanship about someone with this much influence. Should it be an elected official? No, because then we have the passions of the people swaying these mostly logical debates. Should it be a write-in or video-contest ala American Idol? No, because who would judge that process. Thus, there are few alternatives other than the logical solution: the position should be seized. And to avoid the temporary persuasion of the people or the long term convincing of the moneyed interests, it should be a lifelong position... preferably passed onto the next generation, so that there are no issue of succession. Lest a person not leave an heir to be strike czar, then succession should be determined by sheer will. The position is titled after a monarchist governmental system anyway, so why not go all the way?

Now, I would like to throw my hat in the ring and then to seize all the other hats to grab hold of this position. But, all of those coal miner strikes could be depressing, so since I am in charge, I leave out those types of strikes from my jurisdictional authority, and in Marbury v. Madison fashion, I decide the extent of my own power, and decree that I only have the authority to decide on strikes in entertaining disputes because that’s all the American people or me care about.

Okay, so, this is all a pipe dream, but can you blame me? My mind is racing from a lack of new television during TV season and it is in my nature to dream and I want to put a stop to it. Instead, because of all of this political excitement, my mind is centered on power, and why don’t the politicians come down hard on the TV issue or the athlete steroids issue. Sure, they are irrelevant to governing, but goshdarnit, someone’s got to talk about these issues. They will not be ignored anymore.

So, I am not the strike czar and TV is still just a fantasy at this point. But, there are certain things we can do to keep occupied during these trying times. We could obviously watch reruns because the difference between that and new shows is generally marginal (discussed at moderate length above) (and watching ReRun dance keeps me entertained for minutes at a time). We could follow different forms of entertainment, like catch up on movies, even though, it’s not really movie season anymore. We could follow art or music, but those don’t combine audiovisual components to my liking. Nor does theater because the set designs are so limited and it lacks the fourth wall that protects me from the dangers posed by actors. Actors have killed before, (See John Wilkes Booth,) and they may kill again (see O.J. Simpson) and they would likely go after the future strike czar.

We could watch sports, football is in the playoffs, and is pretty exciting. Next weekend’s likely Brady-Manning match-up should be a heck of a game. If either of them loses this week, the other really should win the whole darned thing. Jacksonville and San Diego are in my opinion the 3rd and 4th best teams in football, both with explosive offenses and defenses, but not on the same level of the two juggernauts. Dallas and Green Bay are also on that second tier as 5th and 6th best teams. While the Giants and Seattle are much too inconsistent to be considered seriously as title contenders, having to win three games in a row against top tier teams. Basketball is exciting this year with several legitimate contenders against the Spurs, who were last year’s only complete team, and all the legitimate legendary players, both young and old (LeBron, Howard, and Paul, and Duncan, Garnett, and Kidd) and it's always fun to root against the Lakers and watch the Knicks implode.

It's even tough to watch the politics today, as I watch Obama, a hope for the future, getting trounced by Bill Clinton's bitter cynical wife in New Hampshire because she almost cried yesterday. Moreover, despite my big McCain win, I just watched him butcher a really lovely speech. I did find a perfect example of McCain's integrity: one of his son's is in the Marines serving in Iraq right now and I didn't even know about it, nor am I guessing did you. Do any of the other candidates have children fighting for the military? If they did, wouldn't that be discussed very often in the veil of "I don't like to talk about my son fighting in Iraq because that would be exploitative, but I know what the parents of our brave soldiers are going through first-hand. I know what it's like to fear the next phone call..." But, he hasn't done that (though I suspect he might if he is pressed against the wall), and in the interview where he was asked about it, he acknowledged his pride in his son and all his children, and moved on. That McCain guy is all about service, and Obama is an excellent fairy tale (which I can't believe is an insult), and hopefully either one of them or Rudy G. will be the next president of these United States and formally recognize my strike authority.

But, really, people like me are stuck trying to weather the storm of the entertainment drought, with the only limited forms of entertainment to placate us. But, who can be satiated by watching some rats trying to cook something out of nothing? And that, my friends, is why choosing our next leader is so important.

Best regards,
Mark Papa Bear Ellis

Best regards,
Mark Papa Bear Ellis

Usual Politics

Dear Friend or Friend of a Friend,

So, I thought about entitling this bit, Usual Suspects, to indicate who is running for office, but I figured that analogy was inapt, which would make the word inept. Because although there is a Clinton and a McCain, and though, there are senators and governors running for nominations, and the politics, ideologies, and tactics are pretty much the same, this is not your usual set of candidates. Some of the favorites include a Black guy, a woman, a Mormon, and a Catholic. Then, I thought about the old phrase, "politics as usual," which does describe the situation, and decided to merge the concepts. Of course, because the title of this blog was two steps removed, I felt the need to explain it. But as always, I stand by my firm policy, that it's not a good joke, story, or turn of phrase, unless I have to explain it. So, who are these cooky kids that want to lead us and make decisions on our behalf? Who are these people that want to replace President Bush on the burning effigies?

Because the topic is so sensitive and potentially explosive, I have decided to come clean with many of my political biases, so that I am not accused of the subtle and not so subtle biases of Fox News, CNN, or the New York Times. Additionally, should I choose to not disclose my slants, as in any journalism, I would necessarily be either partial to my favorites or decidedly against my favorites should I try to mask my slants. To be fair to the journalists, they are put in a terrible quandary, because a part of their job is to uncover the best stories, and often those stories are about the meek, and often the meek, tell tales of woe and misfortune, and often the misfortune will be blamed on the fortunate (regardless of whether the blame was deserved). Of course there is an appeal to blame the fortunate, the wealthy, or the powerful because, at the very least, they are not doing enough for charity (because there is never such a thing as enough for charity), and at the very most, they are the root cause of the suffering, via war, plundering of resources through importing goods and services, or exporting consumerism and commercialism. Globalization is dangerous, which is part of the reason I don't care to relearn any of the languages I've studied.

So, without further ado, I reveal my biases, which you will find are heavily personality dependent:

Rudy Giuliani: My uncle actually knows the mayor and presidential hopeful, and aside from being an ardent supporter of the candidate, considers the man a friend. My family, including myself, have long been fans of the mayor's and give the mayor a great deal of credit for the transformation of New York City from a veritable crack den in 1990 to a thriving metropolis in 2000. There are valid arguments to be made that the thriving economy played a role, and even that President Clinton's plan to add 30 police officers aided in the reformation, but in my opinion, having been in New York at the time, the transformation occurred almost instantaneously when Rudy took the reigns of the city. Many of the people outside of the city know of his heroics in the hours and days after 9/11, but to those of us who knew what he did for New York already, his forceful personality and its impact on the city again was not surprising. Of course, his harsh tactics, his policy towards controlling city funding for the arts, keeping various people out of City Hall, failing to improve the education system (while cutting the education budget substantially by getting rid of bureaucracy), and his boundless support of the police and firefighters (perhaps to a fault, if you see his support for officers accused of various torture tactics), was easy fodder for his many staunch detractors. And that was before we learned about the Kerik scandals (and his marital foibles and his excessive repetition of his 9/11 heroics). But his opinions, on the issues that matter to me, such as an aggressive foreign policy on terrorism, strong support for the nation of Israel, a focus on tax cuts over federal spending increases, emphasis on fighting crime (both national and international, such as terrorism,) and emphasis on freedom of the market (not total freedom, but vast freedom), and his predominantly socially liberal viewpoints, Rudy is my favorite candidate. Despite his gruff exterior, he is an articulate, well thought-out, authoritative leader, who was effective at achieving various goals for New York City, and notably, he was an inspirational leader during a time of crisis, which could be a useful asset for a president.
I have also read his book, Leadership.
Would he make a great president or a good president? We cannot predict the future, but we can undertake to make educated guesses about a candidate's future performance as a leader based on that candidate's prior "experience" and the "changes" that that person initiated. I am guessing, he would not make friends with any foreign leaders, but he often manages to get things done, and considering how often I agree with him, those are probably things that I want to be done.

John McCain- I worked for him in the 2000 election, trying to get his name on the Republican ballot in New York. I revere the man, and respect his war record, his political integrity, and his ability to bring both sides together. I respected that in the 2004 Republican Convention, he was the voice of reason, reminding the other speakers and listeners that in order to try to improve the country, it's best practice, if we could collaborate. He scares the Republicans because he is old, but also because when he does differ from the Republicans, he does not defer to the Republican Party, but instead he leads joint coalitions like in Campaign Finance Reform or Immigration. He scares the Democrats because even though he is actually the "uniter, not a divider," he is just about as conservative as President Bush (whatever the term conservative means anymore and probably one of the three main reasons why he "caved in" and forgave Bush for the brutal 2000 attack ads (another reason is because likely he wanted to be able to continue to lead in the Senate and he places great value in civility and finally because he wanted to be the Republican candidate for president)) Despite his respectability, he is pro-life, pro-Iraq war without assigning arbitrary deadlines, and whatever else you think it means that someone is conservative nowadays. I don't assign a premium on his age because he seems at least as healthy as the other candidates. I already explained why I like him so much, despite our numerous disagreements, so I will spare you further gushing.
I also read his book, Faith of Our Fathers.

Barack Obama- I respect his integrity, his reluctance to attack his fellow candidates, and his youthful vision of a kinder gentler nation. He scares Democrats because he is named Barack, Arabic for blessing, Obama, a surname of African descent: he is of multi-racial lineage, and he comes from a unique family with an absentee father and a well-traveled mother; and he also admitted to drug use at one point in his life. "How are the Republicans or America going to vote for someone like that?," the Democrats ask themselves as they pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. Of course, a lack of experience could be a factor in people's decisions, but Hillary Clinton, the "experienced" Democratic candidate, does not have presidential experience, does not have gubernatorial, mayoral, or any executive experience (save one task assigned to her by her husband, expounded upon below). Additionally, the only actual preparation for the presidency is being the president, and I have no reason to believe, Bush was better in his second term than he was in his first term (or Clinton or Reagan, regardless of your opinion's of any of them individually, their presidential experience did not noticeably improve their performance.) The idea of his lack of experience is only relevant if he is not able to handle new job responsibilities and pressures, but with his calm demeanor and intelligence, (probably the smartest politician since Bill Clinton, who I believe was brilliant, despite his flaws,) there is little reason to believe someone who knows more Washington people would be better than a president who maintains 1 or 2 staff members that know even more Washington people.
He scares Republicans, because despite all of his posturing, and tolerance for Republicans, despite his eloquence and commonality, he is, at his core, a very liberal candidate, both with his views on domestic policy and his views on foreign policy, such as his notions of open dialogue with enemies (which in certain circumstances could be interpreted as weakness). This is not to say that he is wrong, but it is part of a larger vision of the world whereby dialogue is a gateway drug to world peace. Also, he would be a calm intelligent presence on the world tours, and in the United States, he would be a rock star, of almost JFK proportions. True, JFK was a war hero, pulitzer prize winning author, and part of a widely known family, in addition to the fact that like Obama, he was an intelligent, charming, young, handsome senator with an appealing family. But our previous president was not some conquering general. So, our expectations might be diminished.
I also read his book, The Audacity of Hope.

So, those are my three favorite candidates in particular order, and now I follow with my varied opinions on other candidates in no particular order.

Mike Huckabee- he seems to be a good hearted folksy guy. He is also pretty quick on his feet, and is a Baptist Minister, who preaches to his flock. Fiscal Republicans believe that he is liberal when it comes to spending on welfare issues. So, he probably loses a large chunk of Republican money, and a portion of the Republican base. What about the Democrats, you ask. How could Democrats vote for a guy who is basically a more Christian version of George Bush? Would it be the end of the world if he won? No, but how in the world does this guy have a chance? Oh, right...

Hillary Clinton- now don't get me wrong, I don't blame her much for the debacle of her only executive experience: when Bill put her in charge of the healthcare system twelve some odd years ago. (That is in mild contrast to me not blaming Bill Richardson at all for the twin fiascos that attacked him upon taking over as the Secretary of Energy (sale of nuclear secrets and skyrocketing oil prices, neither of which had anything to do with him.)) True, she has an impressive diploma and probably a genius husband (I do not use that term lightly.) I will even go so far as to say that she served adequately in the Senate, but has anyone inspired more venom (with the possible exception of our current president) than this woman? Truth to tell, she has inspired more than a little ire in me over the years, from various stories, probably of varying degrees of truthfulness. And she is the one candidate that I have already decided, perhaps irrationally, to vote against (or at least to abstain in the case of me disliking the other candidate). Practically, I don't know where she stands on any of the issues because her whole "career" has been posturing for Bill Clinton's political fortunes, followed by her actual career, which started less than ten years ago, where she treads lightly hoping to float into the presidential seat (like Bush did riding his father's coattails). (See her stance on the Iraq war, she was for it before she was against it.) And perhaps more importantly, I have no clue what her vision for the future is. While Edwards and Obama have given us vague policy initiatives and an exuberance to their specific issues and demographics, they bring an excitement about their vision that Clinton lacks. Obama displays a particular and passionate interest in uniting the country from its vitriolic recent rift, while Edwards harps admirably on the health care issue. Instead, Clinton takes aim at the other candidates and runs against them, even when she was in the lead, such as attacking Obama for his lack of experience. Maybe someone with prior executive experience would be in a place to criticize like Romney or Huckabee or Rudy (and he had to deal with emergency and tragedy, {wink}), but a fellow senator with about 4 extra years voting on random crap, who has barely led any initiatives in the Senate, criticizing Obama's lack of experience? Or is her experience the fact that her husband was president? Or the healthcare debacle? The fact that she dealt with years of scrutiny does not prepare her for the presidency, no more than Paris Hilton is prepared to be president (or to be an actress or a singer) because she has dealt with fame. Or, as I believe Chris Rock put it (paraphrasing, you don't want a pilot's wife flying a plane or comedian's wife telling jokes). The fact that Hillary has been around D.C. for a long time is not the mark of experience because presidential experience is not obtained through osmosis or diffusion, it is obtained through action and leadership. And yes, Hillary is now experienced enough to serve as an adequate senator or a scrutinized first lady, but not experienced enough to criticize someone else's lack of leadership experience.

Will the world end if she becomes president? No, but will anything change? She said it herself, since she's been in a position to make a difference, a few hundred people in New Hampshire now have healthcare. That's it. I suppose anything we do is technically change and anything a politician votes for is change that affects others, but is that really the change the voters are looking for? I doubt it, and Iowa agrees with me.

And lest you think that a woman being president is the embodiment of change, wouldn't it be a bigger deal or a bigger change if Obama won? Look around the "Western" world, and you will see not many, but sparse female leadership, from Thatcher to Meir, (and to stretch the Western world, the late Bhutto,) and look to modern Germany and Argentina. But, a Black person winning the dominant governmental position in a predominantly White country, where has that happened? (Seriously, if you know, please tell me.) And the serious historical significance of the movement for racial equality would be greatly affected (regardless of where you believe we currently are in the state of racial equality or on the spectrum of racial tolerance). So, many of us, including myself have candidates we are rooting for, but we also believe that if Obama wins, it would be a sign of improving racial tolerance in the United States, and a beacon to the world. (It is true there are more females than Black people in the United States, including a large percentage of combined female Black people, (as it would appear on a venn diagram,) so, Hillary represents a larger population of people who have not had a representative president, but either Hillary or Obama winning would be an accomplishment for this country. But, it is my firm opinion, that a president of the United States, a leader of the free world should not be selected based on affirmative action for females and considering what I mentioned above, she is not the right person for the job.)

Fred Thompson was very disappointing because in addition to being a "Reaganite" with political experience and acclaim and fame for his acting (in roles demonstrating he had a command and presence)... in addition to him having a booming voice and a large, imposing frame with a Southern gentility... in addition to him having a voting record that has just enough mystery to give him allure, but just enough substance to give him a "conservative" core of "Christian" values. In addition to all of that, he is a ginormous dud. And I was wrong. Three months ago, I was willing to bet money that this guy would be our next president (if Al Gore didn't enter the race), and now, again, I repeat, I was wrong. The guy just doesn't look like he wants to be bothered by the hassle that is the presidency, let alone running for president. I didn't know anything about his views a few months ago, but the guy looked like our next president (before I saw that he looked older than McCain). He is still technically alive, according to the medical profession, but I guess, his unique form of sleeping-walking is a cloudy gray area.

Romney, Edwards tickets... A couple of slicksters, these guys: the money candidate and the anti-money candidate, who are according to my best guess, the wealthiest candidates. Both have strong healthcare records, and both are traditionally handsome men because they have good hair. Edwards seems like a bright fellow who has earned himself a nice chunk of change and now wants to give back to the community by volunteering our money to the cause of universal healthcare. It's a noble cause, in theory, that everyone should be able to go to the hospital, and be mended, take pills and be cured. Right now, the system of free clinics is seriously flawed and ridiculously expensive. The method of dealing with the uninsured is painfully ineffective and the methods for keeping people insured is dreadfully inefficient. But the qualm of non-universalists is, "why should I pick up the check for a guy who doesn't opt to get healthcare?". If you can't afford healthcare or you reach a certain age, there should be Medicaid and Medicare to assist in your plight, but if you have the money, and choose to spend it on a vacation to Disney World for your family, should I be required to pay for your care? Everybody is in support of expanding health care, but at what cost, both financially and/or in terms of the United State's incredibly high standard of care, which is the root of our medical tourism? So, Edwards's socialist plan is a very legitimate solution to a complicated problem, and while I admire his passion and zeal, the costs of his plan are great. Though, as an issue candidate, he makes valuable points about the power of health insurance lobbyists, and others make similar points about oil company lobbyists preventing research and development of alternative fuel sources, and still others make about trial lawyer lobbyists preventing substantive tort reform, (Edwards is clearly not among this last group.) Thus, he adds a valuable discussion, even if he is at best, vice presidential material.

By many accounts, Romney's Massachusetts plan of penalizing and mandating group rate health insurance is the most successful one in the nation. But, at a time when CEO's are making hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses, while their companies are losing money and making layoffs, is Romney, the person we want for the job of president? I am sure he was successful at his Olympics venture and others and he made some money for others and hired some folks, but this guy embodies the slick CEO, and nurtures the role.
People are making it seem that Romney's big problem is that he's a Mormon, as if there is something wrong with believing something different, like a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Scientologist (which is important for Will Smith finally converts to scientology and then becomes president along with evil Vice President, Tom Brady). Really, Romney's problem is that he's not "Christian" enough for the right, and not un-Christian enough for the left. He volleys back and forth on issues like abortion, and it makes one wonder how he stuck to the decisions that made him his billions. All that having been said, would Edwards or Romney be a bad president? No, my guess is that either would be a typical president... which is not saying much.

Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg- if its Huckabee against Hillary, I invite you both to join, otherwise, steer clear. Al Gore's newfound popularity is not that new, considering more than half of the American voters voted for him in 2000, but his Obama status (having won an Oscar, a Grammy, an Emmy, a Tony, and an Espy,) in addition to his "political experience," would make him a shoe in for the presidency. The thing that bothered me about Gore in 2000 is that Gore had been fighting for the environment for 30 years as a pretty much single issue candidate, but when he was running for president, he backed down (and his campaign partner, Lieberman backed down even further from his conservative viewpoints). But, after the loss, he left lockboxes behind, and resumed his Gaia plight, and now many scientists are on the global warming bandwagon, and his issue somehow now resonates with voters. So, he would be undefeatable (unless he is an even bigger dud than Thompson.)

Speaking of lacking personalities, Bloomberg is an incredibly successful, down to earth CEO and a very efficient mayor of New York. If all there was to being a president was being an efficient bureaucrat, he would have my vote. He sometimes seems to care about people and children in schools and the environment, but mostly he is most effective when he is working behind the scenes because he does not inspire (me or anyone else I know). In addition, many of his ideas, particularly his environmental ideas, such as reducing car traffic in New York City, strike me as unfair to drivers (and to subway riders like me,) so even though I do not dislike him, I do not like him either... my aunt uses the phrase for Bloomberg, "not fish, not meat". I think that sounds about right.

The reason that I say that the world will not end if Hillary is president is because the world has an impressive track record of not ending, and the genius of the founding fathers, is that they protected us as a nation from her (and Bush). The system of checks and balances is more than just the executive and the legislature and the judicial branches, it also includes the bureaucracy. The incredible amount of red tape makes it hard to get anything done, which protects us from the passing whims of our populace and the lasting whims of our presidents. So, let's say, this year, we all decide that Edwards should be the president because the majority of the state electoral delegates or representatives, which kindof represents a majority of the people, believes that the healthcare system should be overhauled. Congress might not let him do something so drastic because it might jeopardize their constituents. Or maybe, the enforcement by the various food and drug agencies might determine a different course of action, or implement the plan over extended time increments. Or maybe, the Supreme Court will insist that the federal government does not have the power to create socialized medicine or mandate state and local governments to provide healthcare for legal and/or illegal immigrants. So, even though change does happen (See Iraq War happening), it's very difficult to change things (See continuation of Iraq War), which sometimes works to our benefit (See The Surge... hopefully). So, while some change can be manufactured from sheer (mostly) passion, (see Afghanistan War,) some change comes mostly from reason, such as Brown vs. Board of Education (not constitutional reason, but clear logic and commonsense), and most change takes prolonged bombardment of reason and passion. You can be a good president with either passion or reason or a bad president with either, but ideally, the candidate has both.

So, at this point, based on financial situations and state-wide and nation-wide polling data, it appears the presumptive favorites are Hillary and Romney, but things could change. They always do. But, I guess, in most ways, they never really do.


Your next presidente,
The Papa Bear, Mark Ellis

Resolving Doors

Happy New Year kids,

and I have decided on three resolutions:

I wanted to pick resolutions that I might actually keep, so I can't resolve to keep a regimented diet or exercise program or to become a better person or learn something new every day. So, without ado:

(1) I plan on watching more TV. And I don't mean sheer volume of TV; I mean more steady television watching. It's going to be tough because this past year was a milestone year in my TV watching. But, I think I can do it.

(2) I resolve to spend more time. I've spent some time this past year, but I feel like if I tried a little harder, I could spend more of it.

(3) I want to include more collections of random thoughts in my blog.
For example:
a) Nobody makes a toothpaste flavored candy, but chewing gum is pretty darned close.

b) I don't care for sand, but I am surprised we haven't figured out more uses for it, other than glass, castles, and time-keeping.

c) For a long time, it bothered me that all the best sprinters in the world run their top speeds within fractions of a second of each other. There has never been some human freak of nature that can run the 100 meters in 4 seconds. Why is that? Is our individual potential so limited that even the best person in the world is only infinitesimally better than the next thousand people. Then, it occurred to me that the time system that we use and the fractions of a second, (or pound, or inch) that determine and measure our abilities were designed by humans based on our abilities. The only reason we think that a fraction of a second is a short period of time is because humans determined it is a short period of time. But for a fruit-fly or drosophila, that half a second is basically half its life span (measurement not to scale). So, a fraction of a second is actually a tremendous amount of time. The whole thing still bothers me though.

d) I was watching The Last Boyscout on HBO on New Year's Day for the eighth time, and as always I was thinking about who has had the more accomplished career, Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson. For some reason, I have always linked them (probably because of the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon action movies). Of course I'm rooting for Willis, but it's probably Gibson. Damn Braveheart.

f) I miss Mr. Rogers. He had cool sweaters, and he wore them whenever he went outside. I wonder where he lived that required sweaters all year round.

z) My favorite painter of all time has to be Bob Ross. He had a great voice, and he made me think I could paint. I can't. My crowning (painting) achievement was a painting of a sunny day that I put right in front of my first floor window. The only thing that looked remotely cool was my freaking happy tree. I kept it up for a year. That entire year, I kept the shades down.

za) I just got an IPOD, and it changed my life. Instead of daydreaming on subways, I spend a lot of time pressing the fast-forward button. This is where spending more time could come in handy. I've come to the conclusion that there are basically only 4 songs I want to hear at any given time. I just don't know which ones they are.

zb) I am very disappointed in the lack of improvement in various technologies. Fireworks have been pretty much the same for how many years, thousands? We still can't spell words with the fireworks or draw pictures or anything. Come on. Also, doors have not advanced enough to my satisfaction. Sure, they invented the revolving door and the door that opens automatically when you pass a sensor. I take it back; I am satisfied with door technology's progress. I probably should erase this past paragraph.

zb)(1) I left the last paragraph in the blog to show that I can change my mind if I put my mind to it. Sometimes, I can.

zc) I think I am going to throw in a mailbag section once in awhile, though I think it will be a lot like Dear Abby. In the coming year, I think I will also include some interviews. Maybe I'll throw in some fake interviews to spice up the real interviews and to keep you all on your toes. Actually, I anticipate only using fake interviews.

I had an enjoyable New Year's Eve; going to several functions (dinner and bars), but you wouldn't find it interesting. Well, you would, but you're not getting that info; you're stuck with the resolutions.

I sincerely wish you all the best in the coming new year,
Mark Ellis, the Papa Bear