Grumpy Grandpa: Hockey Fights

Here is the second edition of my "Grumpy Grandpa" series:

Today's offender: Ice Hockey Fights

In my mind, there are two types legitimate athletic competition: those featuring the athletic prowess of their players, and those centered around fighting between its participants. Examples of the former include basketball, baseball, cricket, and football (soccer). Examples of the latter include boxing, Greco-Roman wrestling, martial arts and Pokemon battles. American football is a hybrid of the two.

Ice hockey is bullshit. Did you know that in ice hockey, players are permitted to throw punches, and the referees don't interfere! According to Wikipedia, "Although a definite source of criticism, it is a considerable draw for the sport, and some fans attend games primarily to see fights. Fighting is usually performed by one or more enforcers, or 'goons' — players who are typically better at fighting than hockey — on a given team and is governed by a complex system of unwritten rules that players, coaches, officials, and the media refer to as 'the code.' Some fights are spontaneous, while others are premeditated by the participants. While officials tolerate fighting during hockey games, they impose a variety of penalties on players who engage in fights."

And before you criticize me for citing Wikipedia, realize that you also use Wikipedia to verify/check everyday things. I'm just ready to admit it. I would qualify ice hockey as a sport/non-sport: it's almost justified as a sport, but the fighting thing detracts from it. Other sport/non-sports include NASCAR, golf, poker and WWE. You know what happens when there's a fight in a basketball game? Players get suspended. You know what happens when there's a hockey fight? Nothing.

Grumpy Grandpa: Folk Musicians

On many occasions, I've been referred to as a "Grumpy Grandpa." To be sure, I don't disagree with the sentiment. I don't much care for today's youth, their interests, or their behavior. Generally speaking, the way they conduct themselves in public and they way they interact with their elders and their colleagues is appalling. But it's not just the youth that I can't stand. Since I can't keep up with all of the things that annoy me on a regular basis, perhaps it's best that I write them down.

Today's offender: Folk Musicians

I despise folk musicians. From a societal standpoint, they bring together a collection of smelly, shower-depraved, haircut-deficient, inebriated and greasy individuals who still believe it's the 1960's. From a musical standpoint, some of them are decent lyricists but most of them are boring and mediocre singers. Their songs put you sleep, and make you wish you were alive in the 1960s so you could counter-protest their protests. Listen to Bob Dylan or Joni Mitchell or James Taylor. Awful. Just awful. I get that what they were doing was considered "cool" or "accepted" or "not terrible" in their time, but it's the second decade of the new millennium, and it's time to end our fascination with these hippie enablers.

I've seen Bob Dylan's song "Masters of War" performed three different times within the span of one calendar year. I saw Dylan himself perform it in early May 2006 ( front row, center), Pearl Jam perform it in late May 2006, and The Roots perform it in May 2007. Bob Dylan was the worst. Not just the worst at performing HIS OWN SONG, but also the worst concert I've ever attended. He is a hack. If you get an opportunity to see him in concert, don't. You know what's a better use of your time and money? Everything.

I don't dislike Bob Dylan because I think he wrote a bad song; on the contrary, I think he wrote a very good song. I just think he's a terrible performer who is given a lot more credit than he deserves in large part because he was one of the first mainstream folk musicians in his younger days. The folk musician movement from the 1960s should have gone the same route as the boy band movement from the 1990s - faded into obscurity after the intended audience grew out of their fascination with it. The Backstreet Boys still tour. Know anyone who would go to see them in concert today? You do? And do you want to be like them? Didn't think so. Good riddance.

What Is Love?

The newly-elected Republican majority in the House of Representatives unveiled the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act, introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). Per Mother Jones, they've dubbed the bill a "top priority" in their legislative agenda.

The bill rewrites the definition of rape; if it became law, only women who were "forcibly" raped would qualify for federally-funded abortions. What does "forcibly" mean, you ask? Well, it's not quite clear. It's not clearly defined in federal criminal code, and the bill itself doesn't offer any clarification, either. That being said, under the proposed legislation, "rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes" would not count as "forcible" rape.

There is also an "incest exception." That is, women under 18 would qualify for federally funded abortions.

According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN):

• 1 out of 6 American women have been or will be raped (attempted or completed) in her lifetime
• 17.7 million women have ben victims of attempted or completed rape
• 1 out of 33 men are victims of completed or attempted rape.
• 15 percent of sexual assault victims are under the age of 12
• In 2001, only 11 percent of the rapes involved the use of a weapon.

But perhaps the most startling (although, if your taxpayer-funded public school has been doing a good job with sex and health education classes, this shouldn't be new information) bit is that an overwhelming number (93 percent) of rape victims know their attacker (either family members or acquaintances).

RAINN estimates that in 2004-2005, out of the 64,080 women who were raped, 3,204 became pregnant. Look at that number. Over three thousand women unwillingly became pregnant because of rape.

Forget for a minute that Republicans were elected in 2010 on the promise of jobs, a field in which they have yet to offer any credible solutions. In a free society, it must be be responsibility of citizens to watch out for one another. In a free society, one of government's roles has to be ensuring the freedom and security of its citizens. This bill takes away that fundamental right from many of this country's citizens. It nullifies too many circumstances from qualifying as rape - circumstances which are completely out of the hands of the victim.

None of those 3,204 women asked to be impregnated by her attacker. Taking away the right to make such an important choice is not only irresponsible, but it cannot be the way a free society conducts itself. If this is the GOP's way of getting back at Roe v. Wade, then they've picked a horribly childish and misguided way of doing it. Punishing women for something they didn't do is wrong, and Rep. Chris Smith ought to be ashamed of himself.

Here's a link to Thomas, giving you more information on the bill itself. Also, check out if your representative is co-sponsor of the bill.

"What Did He Say?..."

I don't enjoy watching television with others. This is less the case with televised sports, but it still mostly holds true. Among scripted shows, I most enjoy those with a) several different stories being told simultaneously, b) dense, quick dialogue, c) aspects of the stories told through visual cues as well as dialogue), d) an ensemble cast, and e) an understanding - if not an appreciation - of historical factors that influence the story being told. The most obvious example would be The West Wing. My appreciation for the show is only growing as I listen to the commentaries for the the first two seasons. Other such shows include Arrested Development and Community.

When watching television with others, the chances of no one talking for the entire 22 or 42 minutes is nearly zero. Someone is going to say something, whether it related to the show or not. Inevitably, they and/or you will end up not paying attention to the show, be it dialogue or a visual cue. Realizing they missed something potentially important, your friends ask, "What did he say?" You then have to recite the dialogue for them. In the process, you miss more of the show. When you're watching shows that demand your constant and full attention, interruptions like this only serve to diminish what should be an enjoyable experience. With a show like Arrested Development, much of the humor is subtle, and can be very easy to miss unless you're paying full attention.

For example: here's a video of Henry Winkler's character, Barry Zuckercorn, jumping over a toy shark. In of itself, why would you consider this funny, or even something noteworthy? You probably would, if you realized that the term "jumping the shark" - which now refers to a moment or an episode in which a television series is thought to have become over-the-top ridiculous - originated from an episode of Happy Days in which Henry Winkler's character, Arthur "The Fonz" Fonzarelli literally jumps over a shark. Zuckercorn jumping over the toy shark is a nod to the audience, effectively breaking the fourth wall.

In another episode of Arrested Development, Byron "Buster" Bluth tries to injure himself by standing in the way of a falling wall from one of the Bluths' model homes. Fortunately (or unfortunately, if you asked Buster), the spot where Buster was standing on the ground is where the window portion of the wall came down, leaving Buster unharmed. Again, funny moment, but so what, right? Well, if you understand the history of film and comedy, you might know that the legendary Buster Keaton's film Steamboat Bill, Jr. featured this scene. Little revelations like that, at least for me, make shows like Arrested Development that much more enjoyable.

As for televised sports, it completely depends on which teams are on the court, and who the commentators are. I'm a big fan of the X's and O's of basketball, and cherish any opportunity to learn more. To that extent, I try and listen whenever Bob Knight calls a college basketball game. He's a great teacher of the game with a proven track record. Listening to him talk about the subtle things gives me a greater appreciation for the game. Even though he's a homer, I very much enjoy listening to Phil Chenier call Wizards games.

Showing Appreciation

I decided to stop by the bank this afternoon - to deposit a check - on my way to Starbucks. I thought nothing of it on the way; after all, does anyone really get excited about running an errand? I filled out the deposit slip, and walked up to the front of the line. A gentleman named Ralph waved me over. Ralph was very courteous. He asked me the origin of my name, and asked me how it was pronounced. After I told him, he said he asked because he wanted to get it right.

While I was at Ralph's counter, I noticed there were a bunch of orange marbles in the steel tray area right beneath the glass that separates the teller from the customer. Confused at first, I quickly realized why the marbles were there. On the glass panel next to me, there was a piece of laminated paper asking customers to take a marble from the steel tray and put it in a bowl (underneath the laminated paper) if they thought they received excellent service from their teller.

I honestly don't know why I didn't put a marble in the bowl. I wanted to. I would say it's because I don't like drawing attention to myself, but that's a terrible reason not to reward someone for their service, and if I refuse to let myself accept that as a reason. As I walked from the bank to Starbucks, I kept thinking about why I didn't do it. I felt bad about it, and I still do. Ralph was nothing but courteous, polite, and helpful. If, like me, you are constantly annoyed by people around you, let me tell you that there are exceptions to the norm. Something as routine as a trip to the bank reminded me that people like Ralph are not only out there, but deserve to be recognized and rewarded - in whatever way, small or large.

Next time I go back to the bank, I'm going to make it a point to go to Ralph's window and put a marble in the jar. Even though he doesn't realize it, Ralph put me in a really good mood today. I only wish I could have helped do the same for him.

Tea Party Response to State of the Union

The Tea Party Express announced that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann will deliver her own response to the President Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday evening. Typically, the party not in the White House delivers a rebuttal response after the State of the Union. Recent memorable responses have included Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal's "Kenneth the Page" speech in February 2009. A year later, Virginia's governor, Republican Bob McDonnell, gave his "Hey, everybody, I wanna play dress-up!" speech. This year, the chosen Republican is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), perhaps best known as the new Chairman of the House Budget Committee.

So why is Rep. Bachmann delivering her own response when her party has already designated Ryan for the job? It seems as if the Tea Party believes itself to be separated enough from the GOP where this move is warranted. I wanted to find a concrete set of Tea Party principles so I could try and educate myself on what Rep. Bachmann might say on Tuesday night.

The Tea Party Express website isn't a big help. A year-old Newsweek article says:

Under fiscal reform ... curtailing all earmarks (“regardless of the importance of the legislation”) and balancing the budget by ... sunsetting each and every federal program and “matching federal expenditures with federal revenues.” No exception, although one tiny caveat: no raising taxes. And ... restructure the tax code to sharply reduce personal and corporate tax rates without shifting the income-tax burden from one income bracket to another ...

Shifting to election reform ... it’s unfair that incumbents have the upper hand to finance campaigns with taxpayer money when events coincide with their public duties ... challengers should also get a weekly, federally funded town-hall meeting during the two months before each election. Once elected, lawmakers should be subject to term limits: eight years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. (Some tea partiers tell me the numbers should be higher, others say lower.) And last, to end gerrymandering, all House districts should be redrawn by an independent commission based on “democratic principles.”

This seems somewhat concrete, but admittedly it's a year old. After the election, the platform may look a little different.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia says, "Its platform is explicitly populist, and is generally recognized and conservative and Right-libertarian. It endorses reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution."

So, what does all this mean? First of all, I don't think that Bachmann will base her speech on much (if any) of what Obama says on Tuesday night. I think you'll hear some combination of the following talking points (prepare your drinking game accordingly):

• Federal spending is "out of control"
• During tough economic times, it is "irresponsible" to raise taxes
• A need to "reduce the deficit"
• "Keep government out of our lives"
• Repealing the "government takeover of health care"

Don't expect her to have specific solutions to the problems she brings up, though.

In Defense of Jimmy Fallon

Jimmy Fallon's tenure on Saturday Night Live (1998-2004) was largely a polarizing one for both casual and avid viewers of the show. Fallon's tendency to break during sketches quickly earned him dirty looks. Several of my friends - I'm positive this is the case with the general public as well - say that Jimmy Fallon was one of the weakest cast members on Saturday Night Live for precisely this reason. I concede that Fallon broke during sketches quite a bit. Fallon, however, provided a wide array of spot-on impersonations, brought a relatable charm to the Weekend Update anchor, and sufficiently played a wide variety of characters during his time on Saturday Night Live.

Among my favorite Fallon characters is Barry Gibb, co-host of The Barry Gibb Talk Show. In this sketch, Fallon teams up with Justin Timberlake (who plays Barry's brother Robin Gibb), and the two members of the Bee Gees host a talk show. During an interview with the actual brothers, Fallon revealed that the idea of the SNL stemmed from having conversations based on the way the band used to sing. The recurring sketch is one of the most beloved in the modern SNL era.

During his first couple of seasons, Fallon also played Nick Burns, your company's computer guy. The sketch was funny, and Fallon tied it together. In the recurring sketch, Fallon would play an annoyed Nick Burns, who was always tired of fixing the company's workers' computer problems.

Fallon brought an authenticity to the show that had been lacking since Adam Sandler left the show. His musical talents aside (and he made use of them, through great song parodies), Fallon made the audience feel like they could relate to a cast member on SNL (Bill Hader or Kristen Wiig come closest in this current cast).

Other characters that I've thoroughly enjoyed throughout the years: The Leatherman, a clerk at Jeffrey's, Sully (from Sully and Denise), Randy Goldman (from Wake Up, Wakefield!), Van Morrison, John Lennon, French Stewart, Dave Matthews and Adam Sandler.

Despite Fallon's obvious inability to keep a straight face, he was an integral part of Saturday Night Live for six years. His greatest strength was impressions, but he was equally as good at playing a variety of characters just goofily enough for the audience to be aware that they were watching a comedy sketch and enjoy it just the same. I, for one, am a very big fan of his time on the show. If you don't have the Best of Jimmy Fallon DVD, I would recommend you get your hands on it.