You're doing it wrong, Part 2

Today on CNN.com they had a story about an ad the GOP was running in support of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, and an analyst wondered if it implied that the GOP was effectively conceding the White House to Barack Obama:

A new Republican ad appears to suggest that Barack Obama has all but won the presidential race, an argument several vulnerable Senate Republicans may have to reluctantly embrace with only days until Election Day, an expert in campaign advertising said.

Aimed at Kay Hagan, Sen. Elizabeth Dole's surprisingly strong Democratic challenger in North Carolina, the 30-second spot from the National Republican Senatorial Committee warns voters against Democrats holding the White House and Congress, and flatly states that if Hagan wins, the party will "get a blank check."

"These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis, all branches of government," the ad's narrator states. "No check and balances, no debate, no independence. That's the truth behind Kay Hagan. If she wins, they get a blank check."

So, that's one item of interest, I guess. But here's the part I found more interesting: The GOP apparently has nothing better with which to promote Elizabeth Dole than "Hey, you wouldn't want Democrats running both branches of government, would you?"

Really, GOP? Really? You expect people to vote for Elizabeth Dole solely because she isn't a Democrat? Or, more accurately, you expect people who are otherwise inclined to vote for Kay Hagan - presumably the targets of such an ad - to vote instead for Elizabeth Dole solely because she isn't a Democrat?

This is the truth of the GOP these days. They aren't winning the war on policy, so all they have are scare tactics, name-calling and advertising that damns their own Senate candidates with the faintest praise possible. Elizabeth Dole is a sitting senator; don't you have anything in her record to run on? Nothing but "I sure hope people like divided government so much they're willing to vote for someone they otherwise wouldn't just to prevent, maybe, a Democratic supermajority in the Senate?" All right then.

You're doing it wrong

Ponte Fresco is a make-your-own-salad sort of place in my building, where you pick a green base (romaine, spring mix, spinach) and they mix in your choice of additional ingredients (vegetables, legumes, meats) and chop it all up for you. Here is what the woman behind me ordered today:

[she has a container of spinach selected]
Staffperson: What would you like on it?
Woman: Bacon, and two scoops of cheddar cheese.
Staffperson: And?
Woman: That's it.

Why even get a salad if that's what you're going to do to it?

God, you're a dumbass

So there's this Chicago-based comedian named Ian Coburn, and I guess he has a book out. I've seen ads for it on the bus - or, more accurately, one ad several times. The advertising budget must not have been that big, since the entire ad consists of two pictures (one of a woman and one of the book), plus mostly black text on a red background. I suspect the whole thing was put together in Print Shop. (No, that's mean... Print Shop Pro.)

One of the lines in the ad is a blurb that reads as follows: "'Best book I've read' -- Amazon Review". Now, if you're stupid, you might think, "Oh! Wow, the staff reviewer thought it was the best book they'd read! Hell of a book, I guess!" If you are like me and have several functioning brain cells, you are probably not Ian Coburn's target audience, because you immediately thought, "Uh, did he just quote, in the ad for his book, the opinion of some random guy in the Amazon user reviews section?"

Yes. Yes he did. But it gets better. So, "Best book I've read" is the title of the review. Here is how the review opens:

I'm 1/3 the way into this book, and am very impressed. It is so packed with knowledge. I felt like I have so much more foresight even after reading just the first 10 pages.

Wow! Best book ever, right? I mean, jeez, first I read 10 pages, then 90 - I was like, this is the best book I've ever read! No need to even finish it - this is going up on Amazon right f'ing now!

Are you kidding me? That's the best endorsement you could find? I guess he was too scared to go with one that was an obvious plant:

This book has been #1 in humor on Amazon in Canada a bunch of times, #8 in Europe and as high as #3 in the U.S., where it was written. It is even being translated into Russian and other foreign publishers are considering translating it, too. These are huge accolades for any book but especially for one by a first-time, unknown author. They are testaments to its exceptional quality. I am a big fan and follower of its success. I think its accolades and the other reviews here speak more for it than anything I could write and agree that it is indeed to books what independent film is to movies. Just like independent films, the book is not one-dimensional; rather, it works as a book about being a comedian, a book about one guy's growth, a book of funny stories, and/or a book about dating. It manages to do it all.

I know when I'm a big fan of a book, I track its sales in various countries and somehow gain knowledge of what publishers in foreign countries are considering doing with it. What the fuck?

Also, this seems a little... I don't know, suspicious:

Publisher and agent comments about God is a Woman:

"Too big for us; funny." -- Capital Books
"Hilarious . . . can't wait for it to come out." -- Basic Books

"Too big for us?" Isn't that really a nice way of shooting someone down? "Oh, gosh, Ian, we'd love to publish your book, but, uh... it's too big for us. Yeah, yeah, we just couldn't handle all that popularity and money it's surely going to generate." Ditto the second one, like "We have decided not to publish your book at this time, but best wishes; we can't wait for it to come out." Just a formality. I mean, are publishers really in the habit of giving quotes to books that are going to come out from other publishers? There's no way these quotes weren't pulled from nicely-worded rejection letters, right?

In other stupid writer news, move over Scoop Jackson! We have a new title holder for the Worst Sports Column Ever Written. And it's... Chicago's own Mike Downey! Take it away, Mike:

Gossage is the 61st pitcher to gain induction. He won 124 games. Clemens very well could be barred from the Hall because of performance-enhancing drug use that has not been proven. He has won 354 games.

Goose is an immortal but the Rocket is not?

...my head hurts. Ken Tremendous over at FJM already tore this article a new asshole - as well he should have - but I just wanted to add that I have little doubt it is the dumbest article ever written about sports. Possibly about anything. I have a hard time believe that this guy knows anything about baseball, since he doesn't even seem to know that Goose Gossage was a motherfucking relief pitcher. Also, aren't we jumping to conclusions just slightly on Clemens? He won't appear on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest (for a 2013 induction), giving him plenty of time to either clear his name or have his drug use proven. And frankly, I suspect Clemens will get in either way. Also also, if you read it, he apparently thinks that the only criterion on which a hitter should be judged for entry is hits. Except he seems to contradict himself later in the piece. Really, I have no idea what this article is trying to say about anything, except that it's screaming one thing loud and clear: "I know nothing about baseball, and if I have a BBWAA vote, no wonder Bert Blyleven still isn't in." I'm not sure what's more amazing - that a guy who's paid to write about sports wrote something this dumb, or that an editor read it and didn't fire him on the spot.

Please stop.

What is it with Hollywood analysts that they feel some obligation to make these totally insipid jokes when talking about weekend grosses?

The Warner Bros. tale "I Am Legend," starring Smith as a plague survivor who may be the last living human, debuted with $76.5 million, the biggest December opening ever and a personal best for one of Hollywood's top box-office champs, according to studio estimates Sunday.

"It's no wonder Will Smith feels so lonely. Everyone else on Earth is in the movie theater," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Media By Numbers.

*slap*

But wait, studio execs can get in on this too, and in much more confusing fashion!

The 20th Century Fox family flick "Alvin and the Chipmunks," starring Jason Lee in a big-screen take on the cartoon critters, opened a strong No. 2 with $45 million. The two films combined to give Hollywood a year-end surge after a drowsy fall season.

"Forty-five million acorns," said Chris Aronson, senior vice president for distribution at 20th Century Fox. "Chipmunks are diurnal animals and they do hibernate, but not right now."

Shut the fuck up. I assume these are just from idiotic press releases, though the thought of these guys actually speaking these sentences is kind of hysterical, but that's no excuse. Forty-five million acorns? Also, does this guy know what diurnal means or did he just think he'd drop the two things he knew about chipmunks to sound cool? It just means "active during the day," dude. Not sure that has much to do with movie-going.

You just don't get it, do you, Volume III

I suppose we have no one to blame but ourselves. The sports media has spent so much time over the past few years pushing football as the American sport, and every possible game as event viewing, and every play as war - a few weeks ago, I actually heard a radio host say "Anyone who says football isn't war is lying," which made me want to put him on the next plane to Iraq - that it was inevitable that someone like Nick Saban would say something like Nick Saban said after Alabama's (admittedly embarrassing) home loss to Louisiana-Monroe last week. But I don't know if anyone thought he'd go quite this far.

"Changes in history usually occur after some kind of catastrophic event," Saban said. "It may be 9/11, which sort of changed the spirit of America relative to catastrophic events. Pearl Harbor kind of got us ready for World War II, and that was a catastrophic event."

I rather enjoy his qualifications there - 9/11 sort of changed the spirit of America, Pearl Harbor kind of got us ready for World War II - but more importantly it's simultaneously hilarious and horrifying that he thought these were valid comparisons. Weren't there any sports metaphors he could have drawn on, or something vague and cliché like "It's always darkest before the dawn"? Football is not a matter of life and death; I'm sorry, it's just not. I like football, but the way this country treats it these days is just worrying. It's encroaching rather heavily on things that actually matter, and that's not a good thing. Losing a football game is not a "catastrophe." Turning a football program around, however impressive, does not rate as a "change in history" on the level of fucking World War II.

Of course, it's not so much Saban's rampant hyperbole that was the problem. It was the refusal to back off those words; usually people realize they've gone too far and quickly backtrack, but the follow-up statement from the program was basically that Saban hadn't said what he obviously had.

"What Coach Saban said did not correlate losing a football game with tragedy, everyone needs to understand that. He was not equating losing football games to those catastrophic events," football spokesman Jeff Purinton said in a statement to The Associated Press. "The message was that true spirit and unity become evident in the most difficult of times. Those were two tremendous examples that everyone can identify with."

correlate (v.) To put or bring into causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relation. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Saban bringing up 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as things that "changed history" and were "catastrophic events" as a way of explaining how a home loss to Louisiana-Monroe was a "catastrophic event" that would "change history" constitutes, at the very least, a parallel relation. As far as whether he was literally equating them, no, I don't think I would argue that, but it doesn't really matter. Simply putting them in the same thought invites the equation on the part of the listener, and that's problematic enough.

On the bright side, if Alabama gets blown out by Auburn in the Iron Bowl we ought to be able to look forward to an inappropriate comparison of mammoth proportions. Maybe something involving slavery, or the Holocaust? That's about the only place left to go.

Enough already

It's obvious why the tabloid press spends so much time focusing on Britney Spears. She's a colossal train wreck of the absolute highest magnitude, the kind of cautionary tale that makes everyone else in the world breathe a sigh of relief and thank God they don't have her problems. She's just like some woman living in a trailer in Appalachia who won the Powerball and now can spend every day going to Starbucks and not working. It's baffling that she managed to have two kids despite having the maternal instincts of a wet towel. And so forth.

But do you think it can stop being news when 85 paparazzi crowd around her car, taking pictures and blinding her with flashes, and then something happens?

TMZ caught Brit at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills, where the drivin' popwreck was surrounded by photogs as she made her way into the parking lot. The paps refused to move, despite several warnings and documented footage of how Britney rolls. Moments later, Brit shockingly rolled her new wheels over a guy's foot.

Honestly, if there's anyone in the world I have less sympathy for than Britney Spears, it's the people whose only job is to crowd around her car just waiting for her to do something dumb. I have an idea, guy: maybe don't get so close to the car that the tire could roll over your foot? It reminds me of that old State Farm ad that annoyed Alma, because in it the woman rolls over her husband's foot in the car and the ad is all, "Ha ha, stupid women drivers," but really, why was the guy standing with his foot under the wheel right as she was trying to back out of the driveway?

I mean, really. She shockingly ran over his foot? I don't think so. Hell, just look at this story, which implicitly blames Britney for a guy getting hit by a car. And what, exactly, was that guy doing?

Several cars were in line chasing the pop princess when one hit another photog on a motorcycle, throwing the rider off the bike and onto the road. We're told the rider was seriously injured and transported to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. His current condition is unknown.

UPDATE: We're told that the injured person is what is known as a "spotter," and does not actually carry a camera. He will follow the star and tip off other photographers to her whereabouts.

So he's a professional stalker? I know that public figures have to give up certain assumptions of privacy, but how is this nonsense even legal? Also note that Britney had nothing to do with the accident except that it involved multiple idiots chasing her, but the article runs with a picture of her looking crazy as usual, so the casual reader is likely to think, "Britney's at it again!"

Sorry to go all Chris Crocker on you there. But I think we've reached the saturation point with this stuff. Does the media really not have anything better to do?

How Scoop Jackson spent his summer vacation

There is not a worse working writer than Scoop Jackson right now, among sizeable media outlets. You cannot convince me otherwise. The guy's been terrible from the moment he walked in the door at ESPN.com - remember in 2005 when he wrote a column accusing Cubs fans who didn't root for the Sox to win the World Series of being racists? Yeah, good ol' Scoop, the only "journalist" in America who writes articles like they're essays by a high school freshman.

In his latest brilliant creation, Scoop takes time out from his usual shitty writing to explain how being a shitty writer enabled him to spend a day doing something that sounds cool (although in fact, it was just a big marketing blitz, which Scoop is either falling for or shamelessly going along with). Basically, he's bragging about how awesome it is to be a nationally-known writer. Which for some reason he is. I mean, this guy must have written well at some point, right?

Ever think that, one day in your life, you'd get a phone call and someone would request your presence at a once-in-a-lifetime event? Something that every sports fan, basketball fiend, kid from the 'hood, child of God, wished they could experience?

Ever think that, just a few days later. you'd be in a hotel lobby (W) in your home city, standing side-by-side with so many iconic figures in the world of urban journalism: Bobbito Garcia (Bounce), Tony Gervino (Antenna), Datwon Thomas (King), "Hawaii" Mike Salman (LTD), Jay Corbin (Rise), Ben Osborne (Slam), Steve Mullholand (Sole Collector), Memsor Kamarake (Vibe), the ridiculously attractive representative Smokey Fontaine sent over (Laura Fernandes, sportswear and entertainment manager, Giant). All waiting to get on a bus? At 10 in the morning?

I love the name-dropping here. I'm white, of course, but I've heard of basically none of these people and few of the publications. I also love how he manages to work in the fact that one of the women there was attractive (no!) and also says "10 in the morning" as though it were the crack of dawn. We're already off to a great, great start.

I'm going to skip ahead because every single paragraph is a big "Ever think?" question, each more obnoxious than the last. Ever think you'd see a supposedly serious journalist write an article with a gimmick so stupid it wouldn't even fly in an average college application essay?

Ever think that you'd get to spend an hour with Michael Jordan talking about shoes? Not interviewing him, but talking with him? Talking about his life in those shoes? And at the same time, Tinker is talking to you, lending you insight into the craft. Then a shoe is unveiled. Then you are reminded of the embargo you signed before you entered. That nothing said, heard or seen leaves this arena. Ever think you'd be one of only 28 people invited to see the new Air Jordan XX3s?

Looks like Scoop broke that embargo. As though Nike cares - "Oh no! Scoop Jackson is writing a retarded column that's building up hype for the new Air Jordans! Shut that guy down right now!" Do you think Scoop even realizes that the whole thing was clearly just part of a big publicity push, and that all these influential urban writers were expected to remember the great experience they had and talk up the shoes as a result? "Man, the Air Jordan XX3s - those are some great shoes!" Of course, Air Jordans symbolize pretty much everything that's wrong with the urban basketball culture - the triple-digit sneakers that exist primarily as status symbols, kids buying them who really can't afford to, the associated flash and me-first culture that's doing its damnedest to stifle the modern NBA. I would think Scoop Jackson - who practically doubles down on the race card - might not think Air Jordans were the greatest thing in the world. But of course, Scoop Jackson has certain reasons to like Air Jordans.

Ever think that, like Jordan after a game, you'd have a hot milk and almond pedicure prepared for you in the W at Bliss by Eboni? Ever think you'd have chill-out time after the pampering -- to do an interview, relax in rooms with mink pillows, then sit at the bar and have in-depth conversations with media luminaries like Ric Bucher and Otto Strong of ESPN The Magazine? Ever think that, everywhere you went that day, people would treat you like you were Him? That you'd have dinner at his restaurant (One Sixty Blue) with Jordan? That he'd come down from his private room, buy everyone a drink and thank us for coming, and say that he hoped we enjoyed "his experience"?

Fuck yourself, dude. Seriously. You are an ass. This is the least subtle "bragging about the perks that come with being semi-famous" piece of bullshit I have ever seen in my life. Mink pillows! A milk-and-almond pedicure! First of all, is this the Jordan Experience or the Oprah Experience? Second of all, stop bragging, you dick. You got this stuff because you're a writer who could be counted on - clearly - to fawn over Jordan and his product. It's not like you won a raffle.

Ever think that you'd be given the opportunity to be Michael Jordan for a day? Ever think that, in your lifetime, any of this could happen to you?

Neither did I.

"And between me and whoever's reading this, I'm the only one it did and will ever happen to! Suck on it!" Can you believe this was published? Can you believe the ESPN.com editors read it and said, "Yeah, that looks like a worthwhile use of column inches?" It's one of the most embarrassing things I've ever read. I'd feel sorry for Jackson if I didn't already think he was such a waste of space. Somewhere out there is a talented sportswriter who's never going to get a job because Scoop Fucking Jackson is chewing up a slot at ESPN with this garbage.

The great Fire Joe Morgan has a hilarious dissection of another Scoop anti-masterpiece. And in case you want to remember why I hate this idiot in the first place, read his blithering column from October 27, 2005, in which he not only calls Cubs fans racists, as I've mentioned, but suggests that Sox fans are the only "real" Chicago baseball fans (all 17 of them?). Nothing I've read before or since has come close to being so offensive, so shockingly uninformed (as though thousands of people didn't jump on the White Sox wagon in '05), or so generally stupid. Why does this guy have a job? What is he contributing? Granted, it's worthwhile to have different voices in a discussion, and Scoop certainly represents black culture in a way the vast majority of sportswriters don't. But there isn't anyone out there who could do the same while putting together articles that look like they were written by someone who had at least been to college? (I assume Scoop has a college degree, but it's not like you can tell.) I'll tell you this: Scoop Jackson has given me a real appreciation for Jason Whitlock. And that's saying something.

Please, try the fish

I think we all know that talking to the press is a boring, thankless job, especially if you're a mid-level political figure. You're expected to deliver every bit of news with a straight, serious face, sometimes boiling it down to easier-to-digest sound bites, and then answer questions from a throng of reporters eager to get answers. So I suppose every once in a while, you're looking to work a joke in there to lighten the mood, even if it's the stiffest, most forced joke ever, and even if it's not exactly in a very appropriate spot.

Take it away, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill:

Piracy is "is a very serious security problem on the African coast. These are not pirates who will remind you of Johnny Depp. These are quite different kinds of pirates," Hill told reporters in Seoul, South Korea.

He'll be here all week, folks! Here all week for six-nation nuclear disarmament talks, that is, but I hear he's going to be moonlighting at the Seoul Zanies.

You just don't get it, do you, Volume II

I'm old enough to remember when Suzyn Waldman was nothing more than the Yankees beat reporter for WFAN. Since then she's gone on to bigger things, but she's always stuck to the Yankees beat. Some would argue too much.

After Waldman's description of Roger Clemens' return to the Yankees this year as one of the most dramatic things she had ever seen (because what's more dramatic than a washed-up multi-millionaire cashing in mercenarily one last time?), few would have thought she could be more embarrassing on the air. But if you didn't think so, you would be wrong.

Following the Yankees' loss the other night, Waldman cried on air. That's right. Cried. A professional broadcaster cried for no other reason than that the team she covers lost a playoff series and the coach might not come back as a result. A particularly amusing take on the issue (if the name "Chris Crocker" means anything to you) is here.

Some might have called this embarrassing. Some might have said it set back female reporters twenty years. Waldman said... people criticizing her are sexist!

"This one's getting me angry, because I don't play this card a lot, but this is as sexist as it gets," the Yankees' radio analyst said yesterday.

You're kidding me, right? This is the exact opposite of sexism. People who think that there should be no restrictions in the genders of sports reporters are bothered by this because it invites sexism. Sports reporters should not be crying because the teams they cover lose. It's unprofessional. And because Waldman is a woman, it invites the ridicule of people who actually are sexist and don't think women should be in the booth. Suzyn Waldman: you don't get it.

What's that? You want to embarrass yourself further? You'd like to pull the card of a terrible disease?

"The idea that I can't choke up because a man I went through cancer with 11 years ago is going to lose his job and I was describing his coaches crying? It's absolutely ludicrous."

Fun fact: talking about crying makes you cry. It's kind of like yawning. That's just science, people. Look it up. Also: I certainly don't want to diminish the battle with cancer, especially since someone very close to me went through it, but the mere fact that Waldman and Torre had different types of cancer at the same time? I'm not sure that gives them some super-special bond. Especially since Waldman notionally has journalistic objectivity. Also also? 11 years ago. Also also also? While I suppose technically Torre may "lose his job," he's not getting fired. He's not going to get a new contract. Maybe. It's not even official. Come on.

You just don't get it, do you

"Ten years ago, someone would never get fired for their blog. This is such a sign of the times."

That is because ten years ago, 15 people had blogs and Google didn't exist yet.

If you're going to use your blog to complain about your workplace in detail, including specific personal attacks on your coworkers, maybe you don't want to also have pictures of yourself on your site, you unfathomably stupid person.

In other news, Harriet Welsch feels that ten years ago, someone would never get ostracized for keeping a notebook that bad-mouthed all of their classmates, then having them find and read it.