When I was at Syracuse I attended a teleconference featuring the producers of some of the more successful sitcoms airing at that time. The panel had about four uptight people who took themselves and their shows very seriously (including Christopher Lloyd from Frasier -- no, not that Christopher Lloyd) and then there was Larry David.
When the panel was asked what kind of show they would do were it not for network sensors, the assembled gave the typical pompous liberal answers. I think one said "a sitcom about a lesbian couple raising a baby, a son probably." What's funny about that I have no idea.
But when it was Larry David's turn to answer, he simply said "Seinfeld with the F--- word."
And for that I always admired him, he was doing (almost) exactly what he wanted to be doing, and then when that ended he did "Curb Your Enthusiasm" which when you think about it, is basically Seinfeld with the F--- word.
Now Larry David is coming a little closer to that dream.
When Curb starts its new season this fall (finally) Jerry Seinfeld, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jason Alexander and Michael Richards will appear in several episodes.
Dreyfus and Alexander have already been on the show at times, but Seinfeld hasn't. Nor has Richards, and he presents the most interesting challenge.
What will they do with him? Ignore his outburst, lampoon it? Will people be angry Richards is getting another chance? And what will Jerry do. I hope he comes back as the manager for Krayzee Eyes Killa.
I can't wait to find out.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
John Starks Can Relate
UAB guard Robert Vaden was averaging 18.7 points per game and shooting 36% from 3-point land entering his team's key game against Memphis.
While his teammates fought valiantly in an attempt to end Memphis's ridiculous conference winning streak, 54 games, Vaden single-handedly shot them out of the game.
Vaden's stats:
3 points
0-17 FG
0-12 3pt
Eerily reminiscent of John Starks's line when he shot the Knicks right off the NBA Finals by going 2 for 18 (0 for 11 from behind the arc.
I can only imagine how Vaden's teammates felt, shouting "I'm open" while this chucker tries to shoot himself out of a slump in the most important game of the year.
Bad memories.
While his teammates fought valiantly in an attempt to end Memphis's ridiculous conference winning streak, 54 games, Vaden single-handedly shot them out of the game.
Vaden's stats:
3 points
0-17 FG
0-12 3pt
Eerily reminiscent of John Starks's line when he shot the Knicks right off the NBA Finals by going 2 for 18 (0 for 11 from behind the arc.
I can only imagine how Vaden's teammates felt, shouting "I'm open" while this chucker tries to shoot himself out of a slump in the most important game of the year.
Bad memories.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Murray Chass is Always 10 Years Behind Me
SCZA e-mailed me an article by Hall of Fame baseball writer Murray Chass.
Before I go on let's get a couple things on the table. I hate Murray Chass. He's a pompous douche who belittled me when I suggested steroids where prevalent in baseball.
I hate Mike Piazza, too. Similar to the way I feel about Michelle Obama, it's not Piazza I hate, the treatment of him, the ignorance of the facts regarding him and his poor clutch performance are the reasons I dislike Piazza.
And about 10 years ago I said with near certainty that Piazza was a steroid user.
There is just too much overwhelming evidence against him. He went from skinny 62nd round draft pick to muscle-bound Hall of Famer. He went from feared slugger to decripit old man who tore a muscle moving out of the way of a pitch. And his statistical decline too conveniently mirrored the arrival of punitive steroid testing in baseball.
And one more thing, according to Murray Chass, Piazza had really bad back acne, an obvious sign of steroid use.
Now Chass, who had his head in the sand for years on steroids claims to have known it all along but his editors would never let him voice his suspicions about Piazza. And even now Chass would have kept looking the other way except his piece gave him the chance to criticize a much better article by his apparent nemesis Joel Sherman of the Post.
The point is this, so many baseball players were using steroids during the period from 1993 to 2003 (Piazza's heyday) it would be almost impossible to imagine that one of the few cleans guys also happens to have this many red flags.
And Murray Chass is a self-righteous asshole who was a big part of the problem.
Before I go on let's get a couple things on the table. I hate Murray Chass. He's a pompous douche who belittled me when I suggested steroids where prevalent in baseball.
I hate Mike Piazza, too. Similar to the way I feel about Michelle Obama, it's not Piazza I hate, the treatment of him, the ignorance of the facts regarding him and his poor clutch performance are the reasons I dislike Piazza.
And about 10 years ago I said with near certainty that Piazza was a steroid user.
There is just too much overwhelming evidence against him. He went from skinny 62nd round draft pick to muscle-bound Hall of Famer. He went from feared slugger to decripit old man who tore a muscle moving out of the way of a pitch. And his statistical decline too conveniently mirrored the arrival of punitive steroid testing in baseball.
And one more thing, according to Murray Chass, Piazza had really bad back acne, an obvious sign of steroid use.
Now Chass, who had his head in the sand for years on steroids claims to have known it all along but his editors would never let him voice his suspicions about Piazza. And even now Chass would have kept looking the other way except his piece gave him the chance to criticize a much better article by his apparent nemesis Joel Sherman of the Post.
The point is this, so many baseball players were using steroids during the period from 1993 to 2003 (Piazza's heyday) it would be almost impossible to imagine that one of the few cleans guys also happens to have this many red flags.
And Murray Chass is a self-righteous asshole who was a big part of the problem.
Liquidation Sales are a Scam
With 200,000 retail stores expected to close in the next few years, I think I should warn Poopheads about liquidation sales.
The stores lure shoppers in with advertisements saying things like "25% off," "50% off" and "everything must go."
Truth is, you're unlikely to find a good deal on anything you want at a liquidation sale.
Here's why:
Most stores always sell items at prices lower than the suggested retail price. But before the liquidation sale starts, they mark everything up to full value, then take the discount. Just for argument's sake (I'll give a concrete example later), let's say Best Buy sells a $300 TV for $250. Now Circuit City is selling the same TV for 25% off, off $300. That means $225. Is $25 enough incentive to buy a TV?
And since liquidation sales can last months, the real deep discounting doesn't begin until the last few weeks.
By that time, just about everything worth having is already gone.
Other disadvantages include no returns, poor customer service and sometimes cash only. Manufacturer's warranties are still good however.
But despite all this I had to check it out for myself so I went to Circuit City. I checked out the TVs and DVDs, then went to Best Buy to comparison shop. On the way back to Circuit City Chase fell asleep so I had to go home.
But I took Chase back a couple days later and realized that the TVs from the name brands (Sony, LG) were basically the same price in both stores.
The TVs that were really cut-rate were brands I'd never heard of.
They did have some good DVDs on sale, but after the markup, the prices weren't significantly lower.
For instance, I bought "The Express" and "Horton Hears a Hoo." Both movies were $19.99 at Best Buy, and $21.99 at Circuit City.
About a month after that shopping trip, Circuit City announced a deeper price cut.
But by the time we had a chance to go back, the store was decimated. There were still a few large TVs by major brands, but even at 40% discounts they were still mostly priced within the range you could buy them for anytime at Best Buy, Wal-Mart or Target.
The stores lure shoppers in with advertisements saying things like "25% off," "50% off" and "everything must go."
Truth is, you're unlikely to find a good deal on anything you want at a liquidation sale.
Here's why:
Most stores always sell items at prices lower than the suggested retail price. But before the liquidation sale starts, they mark everything up to full value, then take the discount. Just for argument's sake (I'll give a concrete example later), let's say Best Buy sells a $300 TV for $250. Now Circuit City is selling the same TV for 25% off, off $300. That means $225. Is $25 enough incentive to buy a TV?
And since liquidation sales can last months, the real deep discounting doesn't begin until the last few weeks.
By that time, just about everything worth having is already gone.
Other disadvantages include no returns, poor customer service and sometimes cash only. Manufacturer's warranties are still good however.
But despite all this I had to check it out for myself so I went to Circuit City. I checked out the TVs and DVDs, then went to Best Buy to comparison shop. On the way back to Circuit City Chase fell asleep so I had to go home.
But I took Chase back a couple days later and realized that the TVs from the name brands (Sony, LG) were basically the same price in both stores.
The TVs that were really cut-rate were brands I'd never heard of.
They did have some good DVDs on sale, but after the markup, the prices weren't significantly lower.
For instance, I bought "The Express" and "Horton Hears a Hoo." Both movies were $19.99 at Best Buy, and $21.99 at Circuit City.
About a month after that shopping trip, Circuit City announced a deeper price cut.
But by the time we had a chance to go back, the store was decimated. There were still a few large TVs by major brands, but even at 40% discounts they were still mostly priced within the range you could buy them for anytime at Best Buy, Wal-Mart or Target.
Perfect Camera Angle
Jennifer Love HugeTits, I mean Jennifer Love Hewitt, doing push-ups on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Puppy Dream
Diesel often has what are called puppy dreams, when he starts barking and yipping and we think he's dreaming about running in the woods because his paws are going nuts.
But he has nothing on Bizkit.
But he has nothing on Bizkit.
Here's to 3-9
The last few seasons haven't ended great for The Ohio State Buckeyes, but at least they've got hating Michigan.
Now Maker's Mark bourbon has a new billboard in Columbus, celebrating the Wolverines' horrible 2008 season.
Story suggested by Pizza Parlor Derek
Now Maker's Mark bourbon has a new billboard in Columbus, celebrating the Wolverines' horrible 2008 season.
Story suggested by Pizza Parlor Derek
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Song of the Week
"What They Do" - The Roots
I remember when these guys were the choice of sophisticated rap fans. It seems they lost the battle (and rap music is the worse for it) because now The Roots is the house band for the Jimmy Fallon show.
I never loved the Roots but always thought this song was pretty good.
I remember when these guys were the choice of sophisticated rap fans. It seems they lost the battle (and rap music is the worse for it) because now The Roots is the house band for the Jimmy Fallon show.
I never loved the Roots but always thought this song was pretty good.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Why Am I Not Excited?
The Redskins signed the best defensive player in football yet I'm not really excited about the signing.
The Redskins have tried this philosophy of team-building before and it hasn't quite worked out.
But the difference between Dana Stubblefield (and Bruce Smith and especially Deion Sanders) and Albert Haynesworth is that Haynesworth is in his prime at only 27 years old.
But the problem here is that in the NFL there’s a salary cap. In order to get someone in, you have take to someone out.
In this case the Redskins got rid of Shawn Springs, Marcus Washington, Philip Daniels and now Jason Taylor.
They also signed DeAngelo Hall to a huge deal because they think him and Carlos Rogers can be a great cornerback duo.
They also added guard Derrick Dockery in the only move which demonstrates an understanding that it was the offense that failed the team during the last 8 weeks of the season.
But going back to Haynesworth for a second, don’t believe everything you read in the papers. It is not a 7-year $100 million deal. It’s a 4-year, $48 million deal. In year 5 Haynesworth would get $29 million. No way that’s happening. The reason it works for Haynesworth is he gets $41 million guaranteed and can still hit the free agent market at a decent age. At $12 million per, it’s actual a fair deal for the best defender in the league. The problem is, not only did they release four players to fit in Haynesworth and Hall, they also renegotiated contracts with several others. Meaning if this gamble doesn’t pay off with a Super Bowl win, the team will be crippled capwise for years to come.
That’s exactly what happened the last three times the Redskins tried this philosophy. Maybe this time will be different.
The Redskins have tried this philosophy of team-building before and it hasn't quite worked out.
But the difference between Dana Stubblefield (and Bruce Smith and especially Deion Sanders) and Albert Haynesworth is that Haynesworth is in his prime at only 27 years old.
But the problem here is that in the NFL there’s a salary cap. In order to get someone in, you have take to someone out.
In this case the Redskins got rid of Shawn Springs, Marcus Washington, Philip Daniels and now Jason Taylor.
They also signed DeAngelo Hall to a huge deal because they think him and Carlos Rogers can be a great cornerback duo.
They also added guard Derrick Dockery in the only move which demonstrates an understanding that it was the offense that failed the team during the last 8 weeks of the season.
But going back to Haynesworth for a second, don’t believe everything you read in the papers. It is not a 7-year $100 million deal. It’s a 4-year, $48 million deal. In year 5 Haynesworth would get $29 million. No way that’s happening. The reason it works for Haynesworth is he gets $41 million guaranteed and can still hit the free agent market at a decent age. At $12 million per, it’s actual a fair deal for the best defender in the league. The problem is, not only did they release four players to fit in Haynesworth and Hall, they also renegotiated contracts with several others. Meaning if this gamble doesn’t pay off with a Super Bowl win, the team will be crippled capwise for years to come.
That’s exactly what happened the last three times the Redskins tried this philosophy. Maybe this time will be different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)