Furry Toilets

There's something that's been bothering me for my entire life, so I thought I'd take now as an opportunity to get it off my chest. OK, well not my entire life. I wasn't really concerned about it when I was two years old. Actually, I guess I wasn't really concerned about it even last week. But, let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it's been on my mind for "a while."

Furry toilets. More specifically, why do they exist? You know what I'm talking about. Those ridiculous looking toilet seat-back covers that many people insist on using to "enhance" the decor of their bathrooms. These things honestly look like someone was carpeting their home, ended up with some carpet scraps, and said, "Hmmm...what should I do with this? Hey! I know! I'll make a furry hat for my toilet."

There is no conceivable purpose for putting carpet on the back of your toilet seat. Are you anticipating a day when you will be barefoot and walking on top of your toilet, and you're afraid that the bare back of the toilet seat will not play nice with the sensitive underside of your feet? Do you want to ensure comfort just in case there comes a time when you are entrenched in a heated game of Yahtzee in the bathroom, and in need of a comfortable place to sit? (And where exactly will the other players be, in the bathtub? Great, now we need more carpet scraps.) Or perhaps, you want to provide insulation so your neighbors below (in the toilet?) will not be disturbed by your constant pacing around that 180-square-inch area.

And what exactly is the protocol for cleaning and maintaining the colorful, furry appearance of your porcelain soldier's ushanka? When you vacuum the rest of your house, are you supposed to tend to the dust mites on your toilet top as well? If you have your carpets steam cleaned, do you make a special request that Mr. Steam Cleaner Man include the toilet hats?

I just can't understand what the thought process is that results in someone saying, yes...toilet-carpet-makes sense. I don't know much about interior decorating. OK, I know NOTHING about interior decorating. But I know that, much like the facts that dogs should not wear sweaters, toilets should not wear hats. Nobody should ever have a furry toilet.

Take a Walk

A revolutionary new concept in public travel has emerged: it's called "walking." Walking, according to the article at Wikipedia (you know a concept is highly complex when it requires a Wiki entry to explain it to the masses), is one of the main "gaits of locomotion among legged animals." It is accomplished by lifting one leg off the ground, swinging it forward from the hip, placing it on the ground in front of you, and then repeating the same motion with the other leg. If you keep doing this over and over again, you will find you are able to relocate yourself from here (your current position) to over there (your intended destination). And I, inevitably stuck behind your once motionless ass, will subsequently also be able to get over there. It's ingenious, really. No longer will you be confined to one place. You are now free to roam and explore foreign areas such as that corner, the end of the hallway, and the until now only mythical "other room." Yes, it is a strange and unfamiliar world we live in with iPads, Blackberries, Wi-Fi, and now walking. From the neurons and synapses that brought you sitting, kneeling, and rolling over, comes a remarkable new activity that is sure to provide you with hours of enjoyment. Just think, now, when the person behind you screams at you in frustration to, "Move the fuck out of the way, you moron!" you will actually know what to to do in order to comply with his or her polite request. Feel free to refer back to the Wikipedia article or any number of other helpful online sources if you have trouble remembering the correct sequence of motions (you can view this article by clicking on the title of this blog entry). Hell, now that we have all these handheld techno-geeky gadgets, the instructions will always be at your fingertips. Once you feel that you have mastered the art of walking, you may be ready to up the ante. Increasing the speed at which you ambulate your legs in the above-described forward motion will eventually result in a highly advanced and much more technical form of walking...RUNNING. I stress, this is not for beginners. Little is known about the benefits and drawbacks of running. However, one thing is clear. This activity will come in quite handy when I am behind you and struck with the overwhelming and uncontrollable urge to smack you upside the head.

In My Dreams?

If you've read my "Movies of the Decade" blog post from last October, you'll know that my Top 4 cinema selections from the 00's were, from #3 (tie) to #1, Memento, The Lookout, The Departed, and Hard Candy. Now, if you go read Entertainment Weekly's "Summer Movie Preview," you might be inclined to believe that somebody, somewhere, infiltrated my dreams and assembled my perfect storm of director and actors to come up with this Summer's sure-to-be blockbuster, Inception. Christopher Nolan, who helmed both Memento as well as the #16 entry on my list, The Dark Knight, wrote and directed this one. As for the cast? Let's start with Leonardo DiCaprio, who was part of the amazing ensemble from The Departed, and who also turned in a gritty performance in my #11 flick from last decade, Blood Diamond. Leo is joined this time around by Joseph Gordon-Leavitt (The Lookout), and Ellen Page (Hard Candy). And just for good measure, let's throw in The Dark Knight's Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine. Seriously, somebody was sifting through my thoughts while I slept. There's no other explanation for how they came up with this masterful array of silver screen professionals, tailored specifically to my off the beaten path tastes. But the real kicker? The film's plot is centered around a group of thieves who insert themselves into strangers' subconscious and steal their dreams for corporate gain! (Cue creepy Twilight Zone theme here) I mean, that's exactly what they did to me in order to create this movie! Now, of course, the only thing that remains to be seen is if Inception can live up to my lofty expectations. It seems like every time I think a dream cast has been assembled, I'm only left disappointed (see Heat, with Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, and Chris Nolan's own Insomnia, with Pacino and Robin Williams). Al Pacino's not interfering this time, so hopefully, all will be well. All I know is, I know where I will be on July 16th...in a movie theater, ready to add the next entry to my list of Top Movies of the '10's. Anyone else who wants to hop into my dream state and turn things into reality, feel free.

Oscars Schmoscars

Well, since I'm always chiming in with my opinions on movies, I figured I'd throw my hat in the ring with respect to the Oscar races. I'm utilizing the typical Should Win/Will Win format, as employed by most major respectable magazines and newspapers, because...well...I'm not creative enough to come up with something original. So, here it goes...

Let's start with the least interesting...what Entertainment Weekly classifies as "The Other Races." These include Best Visual Effects, Best Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematography. Safe to say, I wouldn't know a brilliant sound mixer if he or she hit me over the head with a...er...sound mixing machine. I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Avatar SHOULD and WILL win all of these. It won't, but I know it should and will win at least half of those, so the odds are on my side here. Primarily, if it doesn't win Best Visual Effects, an international investigation needs to be launched.

Best Adapted Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: Precious - Geoffrey Fletcher
WILL WIN: Up in the Air - Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Best Original Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: I haven't seen either The Messenger or Up, but based on how much I enjoyed the other three films here, I'd say one of those two deserves to win.
WILL WIN: Inglorious Basterds - Quentin Tarantino. QT hasn't won anything significant since Pulp Fiction, so I expect this to be the Academy's make-up kiss to him. It's possible that voters might go with The Hurt Locker here in lieu of giving it the nod for the more major awards.

Best Supporting Actress
SHOULD WIN: Mo'Nique (Precious) - I didn't quite flip out over this performance as much as others have, but it still blows away the other two nominees who I actually saw...Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick from Up in the Air. Kendrick has no business being nominated for anything...she gave one of the most annoying performances of the year, in my opinion. I didn't see Nine, but it certainly looked ridiculous, and Penelope Cruz got her award last year. I also didn't see Crazy Heart, but according to general consensus, Jeff Bridges overshadows everything else in that film.
WILL WIN: Mo'Nique - this is as much of a lock as Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem were a couple years ago for There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. There is absolutely no way on Earth Mo'Nique loses.

Best Supporting Actor
SHOULD WIN: Haven't seen enough of these films, but I wonder why Alfred Molina wasn't rewarded with a nomination over Matt Damon (Invictus) for his work in An Education. I walked out of the theater halfway into that film, but he was the only even mildly entertaining aspect of it.
WILL WIN: Christoper Waltz (Inglorious Basterds) - Not quite as much of a walk as with Supporting Actress, but close. If The Lovely Bones had been a box office and critical success, this would have been Stanley Tucci's to lose, but the lackluster response to that film led The Messenger's Woody Harrelson and especially Waltz to leapfrog him in the awards season showdowns.

Best Actress
SHOULD WIN: Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia) - On another planet, in another cosmos, in some distant time, Sandra Bullock's name might warrant mentioning in the same sentence as Streep's. But sorry, Sandy...not in this world. The surprising thing for me, was how much I actually enjoyed Julie and Julia. That marks the second year in a row that Streep led the charge in what I thought was one of the best films, or in last year's case of Doubt, THE best film, of the year. I was also surprised that I liked The Blind Side, but it was not even close to J&J.
WILL WIN: Meryl Streep - She's becoming the Susan Lucci of the Oscars. Although she won three awards earlier in her career, she's 0 for her last 12 nominations. I think it's time to put an end to that nonsense. I can only pray that Bullock's name is not called, which it may well be. I also think Gabourey Sidibe deserved more buzz for her performance in Precious. Why did Mo'Nique get all the attention there when she was only in a supporting role?

Best Actor
SHOULD WIN: My SHOULD WIN unfortunately wasn't even within 10,000 miles of being considered for a nomination. Robert DeNiro in Everybody's Fine, to me, was a return to form for our generation's greatest actor. I still don't get how nobody else liked that film. Out of the actual nominees, again by virtue of the fact that I didn't like the three movies I saw (Invictus, Up in the Air, and The Hurt Locker), I'd say either Colin Firth (A Single Man) or Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart).

WILL WIN: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) - If you had asked me three months ago, I would have said George Clooney, hands down. Crazy Heart originally wasn't even supposed to be released in time for this year's Oscar race. So Bridges basically came out of nowhere, but it looks like he is a strong favorite.

Best Director
SHOULD WIN: James Cameron (Avatar) - I know I'm prone to hyperbole, but I say this with extreme seriousness; if Cameron loses to The Hurt Locker's Kathryn Bigelow, his ex-wife, somebody, somewhere should die a slow and painful death. I mean honestly, there will be no comprehensible excuse. There's already no excuse for her beating him for the Director's Guild Award - a primary reason many people now think she'll actually win the damn Oscar. True, I know nothing about the nuances of film direction, but for the love of Pandora, Cameron freakin' invented the technology he used to helm Avatar. He basically revolutionized film making as we know it, with the entire industry now scrambling to figure out how to make every film 3D and not look like colossal failures up against Cameron's benchmark work. Please tell me how...HOW does Bigelow's accomplishment even approach this level? Thankfully, she's the only threat and no one else has a shot.
WILL WIN: I'm sticking to my guns and saying James Cameron wins.

Best Picture
SHOULD WIN: Avatar - It bears repeating that Cameron is easily a much better director than he is a writer, as the story here was not up to snuff. But for once, that truly was nearly inconsequential. I think it's painfully ironic that this was the year, of all years, that the Academy opted to expand to 10 nominees in this category. I mean, this is the freakin' year where they may as well have had only ONE nominee. For me, it's Avatar, and then everyone else. The blood, sweat, and tears that must have gone into this film couldn't possibly be comparable to what it took to produce An Education or The Blind Side. People completely overlook how difficult the acting tasks must have been...playing against blank screens, having to get accustomed to the technology being used, and even learning an entirely new language! I just don't get how anyone else is even in this conversation.

WILL WIN: Avatar - Again, many people believe The Hurt Locker is now the film to beat. I'm thinking that babies and kittens will cry if that happens. And we wouldn't want that. I say saner heads will prevail. As an anonymous industry Producer so eloquently put it in an Entertainment Weekly sampling of how four Academy voters voted, "He (Cameron) is such a bastard. He's really a hard guy to root for, and always has been, but what he created with this movie--just the beauty of it--he blew me away." Even THAT chick didn't vote for The Hurt Locker!

I'm still looking forward to seeing more of the nominated films, so there are some holes in my analysis here, but oh well...there are other things besides movies.

Thursday, I'm in Love?

No people, this post has nothing to do with love, so scrape yourselves back off the ceiling. The title is just a riff on the old song by The Cure. In other news:

Dear Thursday, Why did you suck so? Were you jealous of how much Mondays suck so you decided to up the ante? Were you just trying to make Friday seem THAT much awesomer in comparison? Or were you just mad that you're pretty much the only day that does not have its own identity? (Think about it - Mondays suck, new CD's come out on Tuesdays, Wednesday is Hump Day, Fridays are Fridays, Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting, and God rested on Sunday.) No matter your reasoning, I tell you, your suckfulness was completely unwarranted and unwelcomed. Kind of like that old, fat chick on the beach in the string bikini (my apologies to old, fat chicks). In any case, I am fully expecting Friday to kick your everloving ass.

Love,

Jeremy

P.S. No, my day did not really suck THAT much...it's hyperbole, folks. Would it have been as funny if I started out by saying, "Dear Thursday, Why were you mildly annoying?"

Close the book on McGwire

OK, I'm just going to write this now to get it out of the way, then hopefully the world can let the subject rest...or at least the 5 people reading this.

Fact: Mark McGwire did steroids
Fact: Mark McGwire broke Roger Maris' single-season HR record while on steroids
Fact: Mark McGwire's admission of and apology for these facts stopped somewhere short of full contrition (OK, this might not technically be a "fact")
Fact: Major League Baseball did not have regulations restricting steroid use while McGwire was juicing

Opinion: Mark McGwire deserves to be in the Hall of Fame
Near Fact: Mark McGwire will not get into the Hall of Fame

There were definitely a couple things that didn't add up about Mark McGwire's steroid confession yesterday. He still claims he only did them to help speed recovery from injuries. Pretty much everyone alive believes that's a load of horsepucky. And it doesn't address why he started taking them in '93, before his body began to break down in a major way. Also, he said that he didn't fess up during the Congressional hearings because they wouldn't grant him immunity. Immunity from what? Has any baseball player named in the Mitchell Report been indicted? Would he really have been subject to criminal prosecution? Sounds a little fishy. That having been said, I believe the emotion that McGwire showed during his interview with Bob Costas was genuine. I believe he's sorry. Now all that's left is to decide what his legacy should be.

If you don't think Mark McGwire belongs in the Hall of Fame, that's fine. As long as your reasoning is that his stats don't warrant it. I can see an argument there. Despite being 8th all-time in home runs, he's only 66th all-time in RBI. Only 191st in runs scored. And as I've argued before, those two categories should be considered the most telling aspect of an offensive player's long-term value - the entire objective of the game being to score runs. His shortcomings in those areas are due to his abbreviated number at bats stemming from constant injury. I still happen to believe that he belongs in the Hall of Fame on the back of being 8th all-time in home runs, and one of the most feared hitters of his time. But if you disagree based on stats alone, I wouldn't put up much of an argument.

If, however, you're going to cite the "character clause" in the voting guidelines for the Hall of Fame, that's where I would have an issue. I don't see where the argument is here. Steroids were not banned from baseball at the time McGwire was using. That's it. Bottom line. End of argument. I don't see why there is a discussion about this. It's baseball's error, not McGwire's. MLB knew full well what was going on; anyone who tells you otherwise is either a fool or a liar. It's just one of the reasons that "Commissioner" Bud Selig is one of the worst things ever to happen to the game. If they had cut this thing off at the head, we wouldn't be having this conversation today, and players like McGwire may or may not have ended up with the numbers they did. But baseball WANTED the home runs; it NEEDED the home runs. So it stood idly by while who knows how many players juiced up. So now we're going to penalize the guys who saw the most successful results from taking steroids? A Hall of Fame without Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa, Clemens, Rodriguez, Ramirez? If any of these guys used AFTER the drug policy was intact, then the punishment is justified. If not, forget it. It wasn't cheating. No one will nominate these guys for any integrity awards, but it wasn't cheating. It was a level playing field, and everyone had access to the same ALLOWABLE substances. There is simply no way to measure how much of an advantage it gave these players. So in absence of that, there is no way to tell what portion of their stats they earned, and what portion was inflated. Hence, you have to take the numbers at face value.

It is possible that one day, one player who has used PED's will get voted in, and that may open the floodgates for the others. But, as it stands right now, it looks like the Hall will be missing many of the game's purported legendary players. The whole thing is sad. A blight on a great game.

Baseball Hall of Fame

My apologies for boring the non-baseball fans among you.

The next inductees into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame will be announced this week. One player whose name will not be called is Harold Baines. I don't know whether Baines deserves to be there or not, but his resume shows that numbers can be deceiving. Baines was still early in his career when I started following baseball, and I dare say the guy wasn't necessarily the most feared hitter in baseball. If you examine his year-by-year stats, they don't look very imposing in hindsight...I was actually surprised they weren't better. However, somehow, when you look at the totals, a slightly different story emerges. Sure, that could be due to how long he played, so let's compare to others with a similar number of lifetime at-bats.

In my mind, the crux of a baseball offense is built around one thing - scoring runs. You can look at all the crazy categories of stats and analyze them until the cows come home, but, at the end of the day, hitters are paid to elevate their teams' scores - either by driving runs in, or by scoring them. So logically, shouldn't RBI and Runs be considered the two most critical categories? Hits, Home Runs, Stolen Bases - those are all critical pieces of the game, but they're just a means to an end - scoring runs. RBI and Runs are the only two categories that illustrate the end result.

So...

RUNS SCORED: Harold Baines - 1,299 - "only" good for 118th-best all-time, but when you consider how many players have stepped on the diamond...not too bad. Other players who scored fewer runs without having more than 600 fewer at-bats than Baines (approx. 1 full season) - Ozzie Smith, Tony Perez, & Brooks Robinson...all in the HOF.

RBI: Harold Baines - 1,628 - Here's where it gets really surprising...that's good for 29th all-time! Out of all the players who have marched through the game of baseball in over 100 years, only 28 of them sent more runners home than Baines; remarkable considering he only had three 100-RBI seasons (oddly enough, the last one at age 40). George Brett, Andre Dawson, Al Kaline, and Tris Speaker all had more at-bats than Baines, but fewer RBI. Only Dawson is not in the HOF, and that may change as of Wednesday, as his name is a lot more likely to be called than Baines'.

HITS: Harold Baines - 2,866 - Still a very important category, for obvious reasons. Here, Baines is 40th all-time. Brooks Robinson, Andre Dawson, Ken Griffey, Jr., Tony Perez - all fewer hits in a similar number of at-bats.

Incidentally, the player over whom everyone seems to be drooling over for this year's induction is Roberto Alomar. Baines' career numbers outdo Alomar's in Hits, HR, RBI, Walks, and Slugging %. Alomar had just over 800 fewer at-bats, but benefits from being compared to other 2B, a historically light-hitting position. Why we compare players by position when analyzing their merits for the HOF, I simply have no clue. The 10 Gold Gloves also help Alomar.

So, what does this all mean? No idea. Just food for thought.