I was actually on the path of least resistance this morning, fighting the good fight against weather that is so appallingly bitter that I momentarily contemplated going back inside, calling in sick and soaking in a bathtub for a few hours. Alas, I should have. All I can say is this: you know it's really cold in New York City when the hookers have started wearing parkas and leggings on the job.
So upon my arrival to work, I read somewhere that the Powers-That-Be at Fox decided to blur a naked ass (a male character's ass, I believe) on a re-run of The Family Guy. If you're unaware of why that statement just blows my mind, let me first state that the show is a cartoon -- they blurred out a naked ass on a cartoon, despite that cartoon not being an "adult"-oriented show but rather a comedy. They are so afraid of the FCC that they, literally, had to electronically blur a collection of pixels which depict a cartoon character's buttocks. WTF?
Any day now I expect to see the coming of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse. Either that, or Mike Tyson will start doing Shakespeare in Stratford-Upon-Avon. Which, come to think of it, is pretty much the same thing.
I apologize in advance for what will be a brief but emphatic rant, but it is simply beyond my scope of comprehension when a network has such fear of the FCC or any other government entity that it feels the need to censor a cartoon. To expound on this theory, said cartoon was a re-run -- they broadcast the original episode without altering the "naked ass" and they certainly didn't get any complaints then, as they didn't the other night. What the hell are the Fox people thinking? Or are they even thinking at all? Incredible...
Apparently, their fear of the FCC stems from a $7,000-per-affiliate fine the FCC levied in response to a broadcast of a Fox program entitled "Married By America," which depicted men licking whipped cream off strippers' bodies. Now, whether I have or have not personally enjoyed whipped cream a-la stripper, it seems to me that Fox's broadcast of a show whose sole point was to be prurient, to tittilate and to explore the more base, sleazy aspect of life, should never have been broadcast. Slapping a "Parental Guidance" tag at the beginning of an edgy, adult-oriented show (like NYPD Blue, which showed -- gasp -- David Caruso's bare ass -- and I still have nightmares) is a start. But this is beyond stupidity. It's a joke. And this is why, aside from football telecasts, I don't, can't and won't watch Fox anymore.
A large part of what has led the FCC to become so visible in the last twelve months is their focusing on Howard Stern's morning radio program. Howard Stern is a funny, crude, simplistic radio comedian; his humor, however, is so misogynistic that it borders on being anti-woman. Despite all that, he is funny. But he's in the wrong medium, and, frankly, he doesn't espouse the type of listener that can use their imagination. Across the East River, in Queens, Don Imus, another radio/comedy/morning man, associates with politicos and commentators rather than strippers and foot-long sausage-fellaters, and while Imus's humor can also be construed as crude and base (keep in mind Imus and Stern briefly worked together on WNBC in the 80's), Stern goes for T&A and bathroom humor where Imus focuses on cerebral-ish humor. To wit, whereas Imus interviews presidential candidates, Stern interviews porn star of the year candidates. Put another way, Stern does a fart joke (replete with a half-dozen sound effects); Imus will spend five minutes discussing the sounds which emanated from his butt the night prior.
Essentially, the FCC began going after Stern after he began graphically describing and glorifying sex acts on the air -- keeping in mind that he broadcasts from 6AM to 10AM, a time when many parents (and many extremely uptight adults) are listening, with or without their kids, and the FCC received more and more complaints until they fined Stern's parent company, Clear Channel Communications, approximately $495,000, in April, 2004. It's not about fart jokes, and it's not about being gross: it's about being prurient and inappropriate. While I don't support censorship, I stopped listening to Stern a decade ago because it got very old very quickly. But apparently the FCC didn't stop, and walloped Clear Channel. This led to Howard Stern simultaneously signing a huge contract to relocate to Sirius Satellite Radio (ie no FCC, no censorship) and to launch a campaign against George Bush and the FCC and proclaim his First Amendment rights. The problem here is this: he has the right to express himself, as do we all, but it has always been, and always will be, about the value of the one versus the many: just as one does not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, Stern's caustic descriptions are inappropriate and should be limited. Would I subscribe to Sirius Satellite as a result of Stern's switch? No. Would I listen to his program were I already a Sirius Satellite subscriber? Probably. Do I like fart jokes? Pull my finger and find out.
Ten days ago, in this very space, I decried the phenomenon known as Reality TV for its goal of getting viewers to forfeit their lives (albeit temporarily) to experience the lives of others, and I maintain that this premise is foolish at best. But this new sense of fear that led Fox to cover up a cartoon character's ass just shows that the people who program this crap are as idiotic as the people who (even temporarily) forfeit their lives for the sake of TV, reality or otherwise. And on a lighter note, last night I managed, while doing some cooking, to catch part of Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory (the original, not the upcoming updated version starring Johnny Depp). During one of the Oompah Loompah jams (can't think of any better way to describe it), they tsk-tsk people who watch too much TV. As I sadly turned off my own television, I noted that I was in agreement with small, orange-faced dwarfs nicknamed Oompah Loompahs. And I'm not even a vermicious knid.
Not last time I checked, anyway.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Monday, January 17, 2005
Restaurant Tours & Other Limited Perversions
Air that bristles and pervades our walls
banishing privacy, darkness and light,
a colloquial countess demonstrative of truth,
perveyors of accuracy and disenchanted restlessness.
Inside my head she is laughing quietly,
her deep, muted giggle sufficient to stalling my progress,
my delay a hastened response to an otherwise
unforgiving blast and an unremorseful tomorrow.
Her hand down below and her perfume in my nose,
the stalwart engaged speeds forth and teems through
air of cold darkness repelled by the heat inside.
A silent gasp and contact is made, a kiss and a
penetrating whisper
shouts its missive without warning,
without verbal response,
she finishes as we pick our restaurant.
banishing privacy, darkness and light,
a colloquial countess demonstrative of truth,
perveyors of accuracy and disenchanted restlessness.
Inside my head she is laughing quietly,
her deep, muted giggle sufficient to stalling my progress,
my delay a hastened response to an otherwise
unforgiving blast and an unremorseful tomorrow.
Her hand down below and her perfume in my nose,
the stalwart engaged speeds forth and teems through
air of cold darkness repelled by the heat inside.
A silent gasp and contact is made, a kiss and a
penetrating whisper
shouts its missive without warning,
without verbal response,
she finishes as we pick our restaurant.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Greed, Stupidity and A Question and An Answer
My last post, entitled "Greed, Stupidity and A Whole Lot of Nothing," was an indictment of the NHL Players' Union's unwillingness to compromise for the betterment of the sport, as well as the League's unwillingness to try and find a middle ground between a cap and instant financial meltdown in each of the 30 hockey teams' cities.
I got a few interesting responses from people, many of whom reside, both geographically and emotionally, very close to the heart of this particular issue. Either by default, lack of intelligence, or simple distrust of the monetary factor in the equation (ie the owners must be "dishonest because they wanna cheat the players out of their hard-earned pay"), most of what I've received in response is vehemently supportive of the players and similarly vehemently opposed to the League's position. Unfortunately, many of the people who are such fervent supporters of the players in this confrontation have ignored the fact that without a viable profit system, a team (and subsequently, the League) will just go out of business. It happened with Oldsmobile (and it might happen with Buick if they keep running those damn "Dream On" commercials). Huge conglomerate entities can disappear if the money dries up, and apparently a lot of people supporting the players' position have dried up as well because they're not factoring in the fact that a business will soon go out of business if it is losing and not earning money.
A few of my respondents gave me a virtual shove and suggested that if I was right, then complaining about it wasn't enough; instead, I should be offering a way for the League and the players to kiss and make up and get back to losing teeth and the ability to chew solid food. So here we go:
The League has indicated that it requires "cost certainty," ie a hard number which, at the end of the day, can be budgeted and which cannot be exceeded (at least not without significant, prohibitive penalties). The players have offered a rollback of 24% of salaries across the board, but without a long-term commitment beyond that. So combine the two aspects but make it attractive to both entities for both short- and long-term growth.
Implement a staggered, three-year rollback of salaries for players whose contracts will not expire during the next three seasons. In other words, any player whose contract will not expire until the conclusion of the 2007-08 season will have his annual salary, as determined by the current contract, decreased by 8% over each of the next three seasons. That means that, if John Doe is being paid $1,000,000 annually this season and his contract remains at $1,000,000 for the next five seasons, next season he would be paid $920,000; the season thereafter he would be paid $840,000, and the season thereafter he would receive $760,000. Keep in mind, of course, that most contracts, much like typical corporate annual salaries, increase annually, so this hypothetical player would actually not be getting such a significant decrease in salary so much as he would probably be kept at the same salary. In other words, a player's contract is usually structured so that he'll earn $1,000,000 this year, $1,500,000 next year, and $2,000,000 the year thereafter. So the numbers won't be appallingly shocking.
Simultaneously, the League would implement a salary cap of x dollars, where x represents whatever amount is an average of the salaries of all 30 NHL teams. That means that there will be, for the most part, 15 teams that are paying too much, and 15 teams that are paying too little, to keep their clubs' roster. Set it up so that in the three years of the staggered rollback, teams can use the salary cap as a guide, but without penalties. However, once the third year is up, there will be a hard cap installed for the year following so the pocket-protector GM's (more likely their accounting departments) can ascertain exactly how much they can afford to spend while keeping the club under the cap. In essence, give each team a three-year head start to figure out how to make themselves cap-effective and cost-effective, all the while getting some relief by the staggered salary rollback.
This is a wonderful plan to implement a salary cap, you're muttering to yourself with your right hand on the mouse and your left hand stuffing a strawberry pop-tart between your lips, trying to avoid crumbs. Alas, as you notice the stain on your shirt (you need to do laundry, by the way), you ask the question: "the plan you've suggested is good for implementing the cap and the owners will get what they want on both ends, a roll-back AND the salary cap...what do the players get?"
Good question.
Since it's clear the players could care less about the future of the game and are almost solely worried about how much they will be earning while playing the game of hockey, the long-term viability of the league isn't in their interest. However, establish a system where the monies current players forfeit through the staggered rollback, as exemplified above, are accounted for down the line. So John Doe, in theory, forfeit $480,000 in salary, thanks to the rollback. Mark down that $480,000 and, as the salary cap rolls on and teams eventually exceed the cap (even if by a little by stretching to obtain a really "special" player), said teams will be penalized. Normally, the monies collected by the league as over-the-cap penalty revenue could instead be in part distributed to the current players, either in small sums or larger ones. This could be a short-term pension for players that are willing to concede this. And players that are not would simply have their current contracts voided with their current clubs retaining their rights. Odds are, however, that most players whose contracts would be affected by rollback would be willing to do so knowing they would get the money back, even if without interest, in order to get back on the ice as opposed to get on the ice in Russia or the Czech Republic (for a tenth of the dollars over which they're currently squabbling).
I'm sure this model is somewhat confusing, but overall, it's a simple problem: how do you re-cast the deck so that no one entity benefits but all involved entities benefit equally, both in the short- and long-term? As long as you insure that everyone gets paid, that cost viability is paramount for League stability, and that everyone involved realizes the NHL is entertainment, not necessity, the recipe for success is back on the table. That in and of itself will allow both the players and ownership to meet in the middle, get things rolling, and get the game back where it should be -- out of the spreadsheets and back onto the ice.
Although I must admit I was kinda looking forward to spending my former hockey time in bed, on the couch and everywhere else with my other half. That, and, if there was any time left over, ogling Katarina, Maria and Holly.
But only if there was any time left ;-)
I got a few interesting responses from people, many of whom reside, both geographically and emotionally, very close to the heart of this particular issue. Either by default, lack of intelligence, or simple distrust of the monetary factor in the equation (ie the owners must be "dishonest because they wanna cheat the players out of their hard-earned pay"), most of what I've received in response is vehemently supportive of the players and similarly vehemently opposed to the League's position. Unfortunately, many of the people who are such fervent supporters of the players in this confrontation have ignored the fact that without a viable profit system, a team (and subsequently, the League) will just go out of business. It happened with Oldsmobile (and it might happen with Buick if they keep running those damn "Dream On" commercials). Huge conglomerate entities can disappear if the money dries up, and apparently a lot of people supporting the players' position have dried up as well because they're not factoring in the fact that a business will soon go out of business if it is losing and not earning money.
A few of my respondents gave me a virtual shove and suggested that if I was right, then complaining about it wasn't enough; instead, I should be offering a way for the League and the players to kiss and make up and get back to losing teeth and the ability to chew solid food. So here we go:
The League has indicated that it requires "cost certainty," ie a hard number which, at the end of the day, can be budgeted and which cannot be exceeded (at least not without significant, prohibitive penalties). The players have offered a rollback of 24% of salaries across the board, but without a long-term commitment beyond that. So combine the two aspects but make it attractive to both entities for both short- and long-term growth.
Implement a staggered, three-year rollback of salaries for players whose contracts will not expire during the next three seasons. In other words, any player whose contract will not expire until the conclusion of the 2007-08 season will have his annual salary, as determined by the current contract, decreased by 8% over each of the next three seasons. That means that, if John Doe is being paid $1,000,000 annually this season and his contract remains at $1,000,000 for the next five seasons, next season he would be paid $920,000; the season thereafter he would be paid $840,000, and the season thereafter he would receive $760,000. Keep in mind, of course, that most contracts, much like typical corporate annual salaries, increase annually, so this hypothetical player would actually not be getting such a significant decrease in salary so much as he would probably be kept at the same salary. In other words, a player's contract is usually structured so that he'll earn $1,000,000 this year, $1,500,000 next year, and $2,000,000 the year thereafter. So the numbers won't be appallingly shocking.
Simultaneously, the League would implement a salary cap of x dollars, where x represents whatever amount is an average of the salaries of all 30 NHL teams. That means that there will be, for the most part, 15 teams that are paying too much, and 15 teams that are paying too little, to keep their clubs' roster. Set it up so that in the three years of the staggered rollback, teams can use the salary cap as a guide, but without penalties. However, once the third year is up, there will be a hard cap installed for the year following so the pocket-protector GM's (more likely their accounting departments) can ascertain exactly how much they can afford to spend while keeping the club under the cap. In essence, give each team a three-year head start to figure out how to make themselves cap-effective and cost-effective, all the while getting some relief by the staggered salary rollback.
This is a wonderful plan to implement a salary cap, you're muttering to yourself with your right hand on the mouse and your left hand stuffing a strawberry pop-tart between your lips, trying to avoid crumbs. Alas, as you notice the stain on your shirt (you need to do laundry, by the way), you ask the question: "the plan you've suggested is good for implementing the cap and the owners will get what they want on both ends, a roll-back AND the salary cap...what do the players get?"
Good question.
Since it's clear the players could care less about the future of the game and are almost solely worried about how much they will be earning while playing the game of hockey, the long-term viability of the league isn't in their interest. However, establish a system where the monies current players forfeit through the staggered rollback, as exemplified above, are accounted for down the line. So John Doe, in theory, forfeit $480,000 in salary, thanks to the rollback. Mark down that $480,000 and, as the salary cap rolls on and teams eventually exceed the cap (even if by a little by stretching to obtain a really "special" player), said teams will be penalized. Normally, the monies collected by the league as over-the-cap penalty revenue could instead be in part distributed to the current players, either in small sums or larger ones. This could be a short-term pension for players that are willing to concede this. And players that are not would simply have their current contracts voided with their current clubs retaining their rights. Odds are, however, that most players whose contracts would be affected by rollback would be willing to do so knowing they would get the money back, even if without interest, in order to get back on the ice as opposed to get on the ice in Russia or the Czech Republic (for a tenth of the dollars over which they're currently squabbling).
I'm sure this model is somewhat confusing, but overall, it's a simple problem: how do you re-cast the deck so that no one entity benefits but all involved entities benefit equally, both in the short- and long-term? As long as you insure that everyone gets paid, that cost viability is paramount for League stability, and that everyone involved realizes the NHL is entertainment, not necessity, the recipe for success is back on the table. That in and of itself will allow both the players and ownership to meet in the middle, get things rolling, and get the game back where it should be -- out of the spreadsheets and back onto the ice.
Although I must admit I was kinda looking forward to spending my former hockey time in bed, on the couch and everywhere else with my other half. That, and, if there was any time left over, ogling Katarina, Maria and Holly.
But only if there was any time left ;-)
Greed, Stupidity and A Whole Lot of Nothing
The title of this post in no way is meant, coincidentally or otherwise, to describe Congress.
In fact, it describes the current labor situation afflicting the NHL and its (lack of) ability to proceed with a viable, financially sound product from which all parties can benefit. All relevant parties, that is, being the owners of hockey teams, players under contract with said teams, and fans of said teams and hockey in general.
America, being a country of vast, unlimited opportunity (just ask an athlete in the NFL, the NBA or Major League Baseball), seemingly hasn't shared the wealth with its brethren who skate and bash the shit out of each other for a living (again, not a description, coincidentally or otherwise, of Congress). Hockey is the "Oliver" of The Brady Bunch: it has never quite fit into the placid, calm landscape of American sports, between the reputation as a bloodsport, the rules (what's icing again?) and the overall demeanor of pride, sportsmanship and integrity that the game has enjoyed through the years is all but lost on a public that would, clearly, prefer to watch a January college basketball game than an NHL playoff game. In my existence, I've had to explain the presence of fighting within the game of hockey not as a brutish ritual but as a way for players on each team to protect their "stars" -- because the sport is violent, the high-speed, high-profile, "skilled" players often attract lots of attention from the largest, nastiest members of the opponent's team, so the presence of fighting allows a team to let its opponent know, by sending out onto the ice its "tough guy" or "goon," that if you mess with our guys, we'll mess with yours. For the most part, and for the better part of 75 years, it's worked rather well. I'm sure Donald Brashear (who got clocked in the head with a stick by Marty McSorley) and Steve Moore, who was clocked in the head by Todd Bertuzzi (all of him, not just his stick) would disagree, but for the most part, fighting is actually a way for players to keep each other in line, not cross it. Fighting in the game of hockey is akin to power as its own deterrent, much like the Cold War-era nuclear weapons in US and Soviet arsenals. While the Cold War combatants never used theirs, NHL teams utilize their goons in order to keep the peace. Most of the time it works, and despite its simplistic, violent nature, it works remarkably well.
Back to the dollars: the NHL, realizing its audience cannot expand in a market which is unwilling to allow its expansion (folks in Idaho aren't clamoring for the Boise Spuds hockey club, I can assure you), is stuck with the status quo: a limited, fairly consistent audience which isn't doling dollars as are their basketball, baseball and football fan brethren. The advertising and television revenue that these other sports garner are simply not there for hockey, and, therefore, neither can there be the same excessive, $12 million annual salaries either. The problem herein lies in the fact that some clubs can afford to pay players whatever they ask, and many other clubs cannot. That inequality is shifting the balance and the fairness of the game noticeably; as I've indicated in prior discussions regarding this situation, players are human beings, and human beings age, so players know that they need to play for as much money as they can achieve, which means that whoever pays them the most to play will be able to retain their services, even if the payor is a lousy team that rarely, if ever, wins anything. Like games.
The problems that are inherent in the NHL model are broad but are solveable. Most assuredly, what the League itself wants to do is implement a salary cap to insure all salaries are kept to an amount which keeps spending within the confines of fairness and reality, ie limit the dollars each team can spend so the "little" guys can afford to sign players, be competitive and not lose money by having to outspend a "big" guy to retain or attract a high-level player. As for competition, it seems to be working well as exemplified by other sports: the NFL has a salary cap which insures, especially based on its success, that from year to year, any team has a chance to achieve success. That is partially why there is so much fluctuation from year to year. Players jump around and many teams are beneficiaries of this freedom of movement. To wit: the Pittsburgh Steelers, out of nowhere, are one win (albeit a huge, upset win) from the Super Bowl. They were nowhere near the experts' pick as a possible member of the NFL elite this season. Between injuries and coaching and other variables, from week to week and season to season, each game is a toss-up until the final gun, and that kind of legitimate, pure competition keeps people watching, interested and enjoying the sport.
Hockey players are seeing the short-term in the salary cap model and are therefore, understandably, against it. Instead of seeing the implementation of a cap as a way to expand, build and grow the interest in their sport and the League itself, they see it as a way for them to lose money and to lose revenue. Resistance to the "cap" concept is universal in all sports because it plainly states that each team is limited in the amount it can play its players. However, by evening out the playing field, it virtually guarantees the League as a whole benefits, no matter the sport. More competition -- fair, balanced, legitimate competition -- legitimizes the sport and makes more people pay attention, which in turn produces more revenue from advertising, television ratings/revenue, participation and ticket sales. Which helps everyone. Because, as this is occurring, the salary cap amount is driven up as each team's profit grows. Obviously, whether or not there is a cap, there will be winners and losers, and there is no direct correlation between salary and winning: the Tampa Bay Lightning won last season's Stanley Cup, and they weren't at the top of the higher-paid teams. In fact, on the contrary: they were among the teams with lower payrolls. Conversely, the team with the highest payroll, the New York Rangers, were virtually eliminated from the playoffs (of which nearly half the league's team are eligible) two months before the season was completed. Similarly, the 2002 World Series pitted the New York Yankees (the highest payroll in major league baseball) against the Florida Marlins (one of the lowest payrolls in baseball). And the Yankees didn't win.
The NHL Board of Directors meeting that was originally scheduled for January 14th, during which the season was rumored to be cancelled, was not held because, according to "sources," there was nothing to discuss. The problem is that there is nothing that can be discussed when one side sees only the long-term and the other only sees the short. The head of the NHLPA (the players' union), Bob Goodenow, advised the players to seek employment in Europe for the remainder of this season and perhaps the next season as well. In other words, he believes that not only will there not be a 2004-05 hockey season but there could conceivably be no 2005-06 hockey season either. ESPN published an article relevant to this discussion at http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1967807.
Unfortunately, I don't see any reason to disagree with him that there will likely be no hockey this or next season: and while I lament the loss of hockey in the short- and long-term, I can understand why the games aren't being played. I also wonder how long a lockout implemented by team owners and accepted without concession by players can continue: if players are (clearly) so concerned about short-term salaries (ie their own), how much longer can and will they accept a tenth of their salaries from European hockey teams that typically employ minor-league talent (aka NHL cast-offs)? And how much damage can the NHL withstand before people accept its lack of legitimacy? In other words, will there be similar backlash in the fan returning to hockey as there was after the last baseball stoppage ended? I think there will be significantly less backlash from fans than there was in baseball, because many believe the owners are wrong (since it is them, in theory, that is causing the lockout and not the players). The casual fan will not blame the players, and the players are the reason people watch hockey in the first place. It sure isn't the owners.
Above, in my suggestion that the players have not made any significant concessions, let me clarify: the major "concession" the players offered (in their opinion, a concession) is something they describe as a salary rollback: they proposed a 24-percent across-the-board cut in all salaries (with higher-paid players taking a bigger hit than the lesser-paid sacrificing less). This is all well and good, but of course this is just making the problem less worrisome right now: in three years, half of the current NHL players will be signing new contracts that need not adhere to any rollback or "limited" numbers, which means in the next three years, for the most part, the "rollback" will be a worthless, forgotten gesture with no progress made and no solution achieved, much less sought.
The modern NHL player doesn't quite understand the long-term ramifications of the current financial picture facing NHL owners and the League itself. And as long as said players focus only on their own salaries and not the health of the League, they will be pondering the problem from Europe or the unemployment line. And to jeopardize your own livelihood in the short-term to insure the evaporation of that livelihood in the long-term is, in a word, stupid. There are too many teams in hockey -- 30 -- and the game's lack of ubiquity means that some of those teams might fold; which means that the players who are currently playing (or being locked out from playing) for those teams will either go to other teams or will be out of the NHL entirely. Assuming two teams fold, that means the players on the rosters of the folded teams will then either be out of jobs or take jobs away from others on other teams. Which means fewer players will be paid by fewer teams, and the revenue all around is shrinking. There will be more dollars for fewer players in the short term, but there will be fewer dollars for the League, which means that revenue (ie profitability) will have shrunk. The whole idea is to expand the League, profitability and interest therein, not contract it: but if the League continues on its current path, the next step is to fold two or more teams, leaving more players out of the equation, fewer teams, and fewer fans. I don't understand how this can improve the financial well-being of the League, the game of hockey, or the players as a whole. In fact, unless I'm missing something, it clearly cannot.
I'm just not sure why it's not clear, and why this hasn't been explained properly, to the players.
The one thing I do know is that the longer this continues, and the more people continue to go on about their business without watching or thinking about hockey, the worse it will be for the game once (if) it comes back. And if it is worse for the game, then it is worse for the players, worse for the fans, and worse for the people who commit large sums of money to it. Or there can be some financial structure implemented to insure all teams have the opportunity to be equally profitable, to foster competition, and to broaden the interest in the game.
Or the current player rosters of all 30 teams can just hold out, hope that more money will somehow flow into a closed, unprofitable business model, and stand by while their sport is replaced by figure skating, tennis and volleyball.
I think I've made my position relatively clear. If you need to find me, I'll be watching Katerina Witt, Maria Sharapova and Holly McPeak from the comfort of my living room with the PIP, the remote and the popcorn. It might not be more exciting, but it sure will keep my mind from lamenting the lack of hockey.
Pass the popcorn.
In fact, it describes the current labor situation afflicting the NHL and its (lack of) ability to proceed with a viable, financially sound product from which all parties can benefit. All relevant parties, that is, being the owners of hockey teams, players under contract with said teams, and fans of said teams and hockey in general.
America, being a country of vast, unlimited opportunity (just ask an athlete in the NFL, the NBA or Major League Baseball), seemingly hasn't shared the wealth with its brethren who skate and bash the shit out of each other for a living (again, not a description, coincidentally or otherwise, of Congress). Hockey is the "Oliver" of The Brady Bunch: it has never quite fit into the placid, calm landscape of American sports, between the reputation as a bloodsport, the rules (what's icing again?) and the overall demeanor of pride, sportsmanship and integrity that the game has enjoyed through the years is all but lost on a public that would, clearly, prefer to watch a January college basketball game than an NHL playoff game. In my existence, I've had to explain the presence of fighting within the game of hockey not as a brutish ritual but as a way for players on each team to protect their "stars" -- because the sport is violent, the high-speed, high-profile, "skilled" players often attract lots of attention from the largest, nastiest members of the opponent's team, so the presence of fighting allows a team to let its opponent know, by sending out onto the ice its "tough guy" or "goon," that if you mess with our guys, we'll mess with yours. For the most part, and for the better part of 75 years, it's worked rather well. I'm sure Donald Brashear (who got clocked in the head with a stick by Marty McSorley) and Steve Moore, who was clocked in the head by Todd Bertuzzi (all of him, not just his stick) would disagree, but for the most part, fighting is actually a way for players to keep each other in line, not cross it. Fighting in the game of hockey is akin to power as its own deterrent, much like the Cold War-era nuclear weapons in US and Soviet arsenals. While the Cold War combatants never used theirs, NHL teams utilize their goons in order to keep the peace. Most of the time it works, and despite its simplistic, violent nature, it works remarkably well.
Back to the dollars: the NHL, realizing its audience cannot expand in a market which is unwilling to allow its expansion (folks in Idaho aren't clamoring for the Boise Spuds hockey club, I can assure you), is stuck with the status quo: a limited, fairly consistent audience which isn't doling dollars as are their basketball, baseball and football fan brethren. The advertising and television revenue that these other sports garner are simply not there for hockey, and, therefore, neither can there be the same excessive, $12 million annual salaries either. The problem herein lies in the fact that some clubs can afford to pay players whatever they ask, and many other clubs cannot. That inequality is shifting the balance and the fairness of the game noticeably; as I've indicated in prior discussions regarding this situation, players are human beings, and human beings age, so players know that they need to play for as much money as they can achieve, which means that whoever pays them the most to play will be able to retain their services, even if the payor is a lousy team that rarely, if ever, wins anything. Like games.
The problems that are inherent in the NHL model are broad but are solveable. Most assuredly, what the League itself wants to do is implement a salary cap to insure all salaries are kept to an amount which keeps spending within the confines of fairness and reality, ie limit the dollars each team can spend so the "little" guys can afford to sign players, be competitive and not lose money by having to outspend a "big" guy to retain or attract a high-level player. As for competition, it seems to be working well as exemplified by other sports: the NFL has a salary cap which insures, especially based on its success, that from year to year, any team has a chance to achieve success. That is partially why there is so much fluctuation from year to year. Players jump around and many teams are beneficiaries of this freedom of movement. To wit: the Pittsburgh Steelers, out of nowhere, are one win (albeit a huge, upset win) from the Super Bowl. They were nowhere near the experts' pick as a possible member of the NFL elite this season. Between injuries and coaching and other variables, from week to week and season to season, each game is a toss-up until the final gun, and that kind of legitimate, pure competition keeps people watching, interested and enjoying the sport.
Hockey players are seeing the short-term in the salary cap model and are therefore, understandably, against it. Instead of seeing the implementation of a cap as a way to expand, build and grow the interest in their sport and the League itself, they see it as a way for them to lose money and to lose revenue. Resistance to the "cap" concept is universal in all sports because it plainly states that each team is limited in the amount it can play its players. However, by evening out the playing field, it virtually guarantees the League as a whole benefits, no matter the sport. More competition -- fair, balanced, legitimate competition -- legitimizes the sport and makes more people pay attention, which in turn produces more revenue from advertising, television ratings/revenue, participation and ticket sales. Which helps everyone. Because, as this is occurring, the salary cap amount is driven up as each team's profit grows. Obviously, whether or not there is a cap, there will be winners and losers, and there is no direct correlation between salary and winning: the Tampa Bay Lightning won last season's Stanley Cup, and they weren't at the top of the higher-paid teams. In fact, on the contrary: they were among the teams with lower payrolls. Conversely, the team with the highest payroll, the New York Rangers, were virtually eliminated from the playoffs (of which nearly half the league's team are eligible) two months before the season was completed. Similarly, the 2002 World Series pitted the New York Yankees (the highest payroll in major league baseball) against the Florida Marlins (one of the lowest payrolls in baseball). And the Yankees didn't win.
The NHL Board of Directors meeting that was originally scheduled for January 14th, during which the season was rumored to be cancelled, was not held because, according to "sources," there was nothing to discuss. The problem is that there is nothing that can be discussed when one side sees only the long-term and the other only sees the short. The head of the NHLPA (the players' union), Bob Goodenow, advised the players to seek employment in Europe for the remainder of this season and perhaps the next season as well. In other words, he believes that not only will there not be a 2004-05 hockey season but there could conceivably be no 2005-06 hockey season either. ESPN published an article relevant to this discussion at http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1967807.
Unfortunately, I don't see any reason to disagree with him that there will likely be no hockey this or next season: and while I lament the loss of hockey in the short- and long-term, I can understand why the games aren't being played. I also wonder how long a lockout implemented by team owners and accepted without concession by players can continue: if players are (clearly) so concerned about short-term salaries (ie their own), how much longer can and will they accept a tenth of their salaries from European hockey teams that typically employ minor-league talent (aka NHL cast-offs)? And how much damage can the NHL withstand before people accept its lack of legitimacy? In other words, will there be similar backlash in the fan returning to hockey as there was after the last baseball stoppage ended? I think there will be significantly less backlash from fans than there was in baseball, because many believe the owners are wrong (since it is them, in theory, that is causing the lockout and not the players). The casual fan will not blame the players, and the players are the reason people watch hockey in the first place. It sure isn't the owners.
Above, in my suggestion that the players have not made any significant concessions, let me clarify: the major "concession" the players offered (in their opinion, a concession) is something they describe as a salary rollback: they proposed a 24-percent across-the-board cut in all salaries (with higher-paid players taking a bigger hit than the lesser-paid sacrificing less). This is all well and good, but of course this is just making the problem less worrisome right now: in three years, half of the current NHL players will be signing new contracts that need not adhere to any rollback or "limited" numbers, which means in the next three years, for the most part, the "rollback" will be a worthless, forgotten gesture with no progress made and no solution achieved, much less sought.
The modern NHL player doesn't quite understand the long-term ramifications of the current financial picture facing NHL owners and the League itself. And as long as said players focus only on their own salaries and not the health of the League, they will be pondering the problem from Europe or the unemployment line. And to jeopardize your own livelihood in the short-term to insure the evaporation of that livelihood in the long-term is, in a word, stupid. There are too many teams in hockey -- 30 -- and the game's lack of ubiquity means that some of those teams might fold; which means that the players who are currently playing (or being locked out from playing) for those teams will either go to other teams or will be out of the NHL entirely. Assuming two teams fold, that means the players on the rosters of the folded teams will then either be out of jobs or take jobs away from others on other teams. Which means fewer players will be paid by fewer teams, and the revenue all around is shrinking. There will be more dollars for fewer players in the short term, but there will be fewer dollars for the League, which means that revenue (ie profitability) will have shrunk. The whole idea is to expand the League, profitability and interest therein, not contract it: but if the League continues on its current path, the next step is to fold two or more teams, leaving more players out of the equation, fewer teams, and fewer fans. I don't understand how this can improve the financial well-being of the League, the game of hockey, or the players as a whole. In fact, unless I'm missing something, it clearly cannot.
I'm just not sure why it's not clear, and why this hasn't been explained properly, to the players.
The one thing I do know is that the longer this continues, and the more people continue to go on about their business without watching or thinking about hockey, the worse it will be for the game once (if) it comes back. And if it is worse for the game, then it is worse for the players, worse for the fans, and worse for the people who commit large sums of money to it. Or there can be some financial structure implemented to insure all teams have the opportunity to be equally profitable, to foster competition, and to broaden the interest in the game.
Or the current player rosters of all 30 teams can just hold out, hope that more money will somehow flow into a closed, unprofitable business model, and stand by while their sport is replaced by figure skating, tennis and volleyball.
I think I've made my position relatively clear. If you need to find me, I'll be watching Katerina Witt, Maria Sharapova and Holly McPeak from the comfort of my living room with the PIP, the remote and the popcorn. It might not be more exciting, but it sure will keep my mind from lamenting the lack of hockey.
Pass the popcorn.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Morning Glory
Winding down and waking up,
the warm aura of morning
stifled and quiet, climbing upwards,
dousing ambition and temptation
with the haze of late-night and confusion
and dreams sifting through the prior day.
A tinsel stalk and pounding rhyming couplets
eerily reminiscent of Pixeleen and Babylon Sisters
as she stirs quietly, with a pillow-muffled sigh,
reaching and landing and feeling and eyes knowing.
Relief and laughter, knowing and recalling,
thinking back to Jerry's good luck to George,
I continue the undercover journey
and we are back beneath the folds and
the warmth of morning covered in green, gold and wine.
the warm aura of morning
stifled and quiet, climbing upwards,
dousing ambition and temptation
with the haze of late-night and confusion
and dreams sifting through the prior day.
A tinsel stalk and pounding rhyming couplets
eerily reminiscent of Pixeleen and Babylon Sisters
as she stirs quietly, with a pillow-muffled sigh,
reaching and landing and feeling and eyes knowing.
Relief and laughter, knowing and recalling,
thinking back to Jerry's good luck to George,
I continue the undercover journey
and we are back beneath the folds and
the warmth of morning covered in green, gold and wine.
Friday, January 14, 2005
My So-Called Beliefs
Since I never seem to have too little to say, I find it strange that many people who condescend and criticize my willingness to be verbose seem to be among those people who seemingly meander through life, wet blankets that stick to the sidelines and never get the opportunity, let alone take said opportunity, to come out and state their beliefs. And since they're out there reading, they can take this collection of opinions, suggestions, thoughts and beliefs, print it out and wipe their collective tuchases with it.
I think that any time someone is convicted of drunk driving, they should go to jail for five years and for an additional 20 years, minimum, if they kill anyone while driving while intoxicated. If they are arrested a second time for drunk driving, they should be imprisoned for life, whether or not they kill anyone. Incidentally, drunk driving, in my book, is being significantly over the legal blood-alcohol level; being one tenth of a point over after having a glass and a half of Shiraz doesn't quite count. We're talking about people who have been in a bar or their home getting hammered and then somehow opted to take a nice, leisurely drive down a sidewalk somewhere.
Men convicted of rape should get a minimum 10-year sentence with a chance to cut that sentence in half if they are willing to be castrated prior to imprisonment. For repeat offenders, a minimum of 20 years and automatic castration by rottweiller. And not in that order.
While we're in the "penal" phase, I think anyone convicted of murder and sentenced to death who wastes countless hours of court time in the appelate stages should be relieved of the burden of lethal injection and should instead be sentenced to an hour (if they can last that long) in a shark cage wearing a chum necklace and a chum butt-plug. Too many hardened criminals waste too much of our courts' time, so allowing them to spend a number of years on death row, petitioning and appealing and costing the government millions of dollars annually, should come with a risk. So for any of you contemplating multiple capital murder: if you get convicted and you know you've got next to no chance of being acquitted, go the easy route, plead guilty -- no shark cage.
I think the speed limit should vary not only from road to road but depending on when and how crowded the roadway is; doing 65 mph at certain times in heavy traffic is far more dangerous than driving 85mph at others, say, at 2AM along Route 80 East or the West Side Highway. The speed limit isn't about saving lives or preventing accidents, it's about revenue, pure and simple; and as cars are better- and more efficiently-designed, there's no way that 55mph is a reasonable speed limit to anyone but grandmothers who live five minutes away from the market and the Tuesday Night Bingo Club. And any truly incompetent drivers should have their licenses rescinded and their cars painted hot pink so everyone knows to keep far away from them, on the road and off.
I think women who have breast implants should have a tell-tale tattoo of some sort inked onto their ears so there's no debate about which are real and which aren't. I also think that men with small penises should be sporting a similar tattoo on their ears. Fair is fair: just because we're wearing clothes doesn't mean we shouldn't be a free and open society.
Anyone who farts in a crowded elevator should be forced to walk around his or her office without pants for one full workday, including his/her commute, and also be required to wear a brown headband featuring the word "Flatulator" in bright yellow.
I think that if a movie genuinely sucks, you should be able to get back half the money it cost you. That means the creme de la crap, like Ishtar, Titanic and Bed of Roses, could, conceivably, lose money after one weekend of showings. I really don't care that it costs $40 for two people to see a movie with a bag of popcorn and a Diet Coke in NYC; but I pay for my groceries after I've had a chance to pick them out and inspect them, and I pay after the meal at a restaurant, not before. So if I'm forced to dole out the dollars for a shitty movie prior to watching it, I'm coming out of the theater looking for some payback -- literally.
Speaking of theaters, anyone who doesn't disable the ringer on their cellphone and actually spends time during the movie talking to someone via a cellphone should have the phone confiscated and their cellular company notified they are irresponsible and should be prevented from obtaining another cell phone for a period of not less than one year. Further, anyone who brings a child under ten to a scary or disturbing movie -- say, Nightmare on Elm Street or 28 Days Later -- should be forced to volunteer for five hours a week at a local psychiatric ward. There are lots of freaky people in the world, and many are born that way, ie genetically. Parents should have the brains to not try and speed this process along by letting six-year-old Jimmy watch a killer mutant wipe out the human race -- one bloody stain at a time.
I think the President should be forced to give speeches while hooked up to a lie-detector machine, and a split-screen display be implemented so we can tell when he's bullshitting, when he's not, and when he really has to take a nasty leak. Politicians lie with regularity -- so until such time as we are able to figure out when they are and when they aren't, let technology do the work for us.
I think Madonna writing a children's book is akin to Charles Manson writing a book on how to make friends and influence people. I also believe that freaks like Marilyn Manson, White Zombie and Korn should be required to tour with acts like Air Supply, Barry Manilow and Pat Boone.
I think pornstars should be required to also function as census-takers, so that they can mingle with "Mr. and Mrs. America" and be forced to meet their fans up close and personal.
I think sex is best by candlelight, unless there's no matches lying around the airplane bathroom. I also think stewardesses -- the term "flight attendants" is ridiculous -- should at least be relatively friendly. Hiring non "people persons" to deal with airplane passengers with regularity is shitty, but what's shittier is having to find out a particular stewardess is having a really bad day because her PMS is raging, her ex-husband is nailing his secretary and her son is sleeping with the cleaning woman -- at 30,000 feet. No one is happy 24-7, but aside from opening cans of soda and pouring them and passing out plastic trays of barely-edible food, is it really that tough being a stewardess? It's like being a waitress for a limited number of hours at a time, only without tips and better dental coverage. If you are a stewardess and you find that you hate passengers, here's a safety tip: find another career track.
The sports world is an insular, elitist circle of athletes and those who fawn over, preen or otherwise assist them. But while athletes themselves are largely (and understandably) regarded as idiots, their coaches and managers should be held to a higher standard. So any coach that berates or otherwise treats badly a member of the media or a fan without reasonable cause should be forced to wear a Boston Red Sox cap -- and nothing else -- during a September Red Sox-Yankees game in the Bronx while sitting in the bleachers.
Anyone other than college students who gets so inebbriated that they wind up vomiting in public should be forced to endure a 30-minute session of striptease performed by their oldest living grandparent. If no grandparent is alive, then the strip-tease should be performed by Jerry Falwell or Rush Limbaugh, whoever is least preferable by the offender.
Any child -- and by child I refer to anyone under the age of 18 -- who is convicted of possessing and/or selling hard drugs (anything beyond marijuana and medication) and/or guns should be flown and air-dropped into Sesketchawan, Canada, with only the clothes on their back and one penny. And anyone guilty of fleeing the scene of an accident where someone is legitimately injured (ie where anyone needs to go to the hospital via ambulance) should be forced to endure an hour as a hood ornament at the annual Mudpie Demolition Derby held in Chatanooga, Tennessee.
People who regularly use cliches in their everyday language should be forced to spend a week in a foreign country, preferably France or Somalia, provided they can't speak the language of their host country and they have no family or friends therein. Each time they use a cliche while being hosted by said foreign country, they forfeit a tooth -- immediately (without novocaine). And if they use really inane, bizarre cliches, like "two in the hand is better than one in the bush," they either get kicked in the testicles or receive a nipple-tweak, depending on the gender of the offender.
A guest who replaces the toilet paper in someone else's home with the paper rolling upward rather than downward should be sentenced to only using unlit gas station bathrooms for one week, without toilet paper or stall doors therein.
People who actively find themselves enjoying the existence of Pauly Shore, Joan Rivers and/or The Clapper need to be tied to a chair, have their eyelids sewn open, and forced to watch 24 straight hours of infomercials -- in Portuguese. And each hour, on the hour, they should get fish-slapped (either trout or striped bass), as a rule.
Finally, anyone who cuts you off in the fast lane and then proceeds to keep their speed ten miles slower than the speed you were going prior to them cutting you off should be pulled over and be given a crushed-ice enema -- roadside -- and then locked in their car for an hour before being allowed to return to the road (I always like to include at least one item that all people can appreciate).
I think that any time someone is convicted of drunk driving, they should go to jail for five years and for an additional 20 years, minimum, if they kill anyone while driving while intoxicated. If they are arrested a second time for drunk driving, they should be imprisoned for life, whether or not they kill anyone. Incidentally, drunk driving, in my book, is being significantly over the legal blood-alcohol level; being one tenth of a point over after having a glass and a half of Shiraz doesn't quite count. We're talking about people who have been in a bar or their home getting hammered and then somehow opted to take a nice, leisurely drive down a sidewalk somewhere.
Men convicted of rape should get a minimum 10-year sentence with a chance to cut that sentence in half if they are willing to be castrated prior to imprisonment. For repeat offenders, a minimum of 20 years and automatic castration by rottweiller. And not in that order.
While we're in the "penal" phase, I think anyone convicted of murder and sentenced to death who wastes countless hours of court time in the appelate stages should be relieved of the burden of lethal injection and should instead be sentenced to an hour (if they can last that long) in a shark cage wearing a chum necklace and a chum butt-plug. Too many hardened criminals waste too much of our courts' time, so allowing them to spend a number of years on death row, petitioning and appealing and costing the government millions of dollars annually, should come with a risk. So for any of you contemplating multiple capital murder: if you get convicted and you know you've got next to no chance of being acquitted, go the easy route, plead guilty -- no shark cage.
I think the speed limit should vary not only from road to road but depending on when and how crowded the roadway is; doing 65 mph at certain times in heavy traffic is far more dangerous than driving 85mph at others, say, at 2AM along Route 80 East or the West Side Highway. The speed limit isn't about saving lives or preventing accidents, it's about revenue, pure and simple; and as cars are better- and more efficiently-designed, there's no way that 55mph is a reasonable speed limit to anyone but grandmothers who live five minutes away from the market and the Tuesday Night Bingo Club. And any truly incompetent drivers should have their licenses rescinded and their cars painted hot pink so everyone knows to keep far away from them, on the road and off.
I think women who have breast implants should have a tell-tale tattoo of some sort inked onto their ears so there's no debate about which are real and which aren't. I also think that men with small penises should be sporting a similar tattoo on their ears. Fair is fair: just because we're wearing clothes doesn't mean we shouldn't be a free and open society.
Anyone who farts in a crowded elevator should be forced to walk around his or her office without pants for one full workday, including his/her commute, and also be required to wear a brown headband featuring the word "Flatulator" in bright yellow.
I think that if a movie genuinely sucks, you should be able to get back half the money it cost you. That means the creme de la crap, like Ishtar, Titanic and Bed of Roses, could, conceivably, lose money after one weekend of showings. I really don't care that it costs $40 for two people to see a movie with a bag of popcorn and a Diet Coke in NYC; but I pay for my groceries after I've had a chance to pick them out and inspect them, and I pay after the meal at a restaurant, not before. So if I'm forced to dole out the dollars for a shitty movie prior to watching it, I'm coming out of the theater looking for some payback -- literally.
Speaking of theaters, anyone who doesn't disable the ringer on their cellphone and actually spends time during the movie talking to someone via a cellphone should have the phone confiscated and their cellular company notified they are irresponsible and should be prevented from obtaining another cell phone for a period of not less than one year. Further, anyone who brings a child under ten to a scary or disturbing movie -- say, Nightmare on Elm Street or 28 Days Later -- should be forced to volunteer for five hours a week at a local psychiatric ward. There are lots of freaky people in the world, and many are born that way, ie genetically. Parents should have the brains to not try and speed this process along by letting six-year-old Jimmy watch a killer mutant wipe out the human race -- one bloody stain at a time.
I think the President should be forced to give speeches while hooked up to a lie-detector machine, and a split-screen display be implemented so we can tell when he's bullshitting, when he's not, and when he really has to take a nasty leak. Politicians lie with regularity -- so until such time as we are able to figure out when they are and when they aren't, let technology do the work for us.
I think Madonna writing a children's book is akin to Charles Manson writing a book on how to make friends and influence people. I also believe that freaks like Marilyn Manson, White Zombie and Korn should be required to tour with acts like Air Supply, Barry Manilow and Pat Boone.
I think pornstars should be required to also function as census-takers, so that they can mingle with "Mr. and Mrs. America" and be forced to meet their fans up close and personal.
I think sex is best by candlelight, unless there's no matches lying around the airplane bathroom. I also think stewardesses -- the term "flight attendants" is ridiculous -- should at least be relatively friendly. Hiring non "people persons" to deal with airplane passengers with regularity is shitty, but what's shittier is having to find out a particular stewardess is having a really bad day because her PMS is raging, her ex-husband is nailing his secretary and her son is sleeping with the cleaning woman -- at 30,000 feet. No one is happy 24-7, but aside from opening cans of soda and pouring them and passing out plastic trays of barely-edible food, is it really that tough being a stewardess? It's like being a waitress for a limited number of hours at a time, only without tips and better dental coverage. If you are a stewardess and you find that you hate passengers, here's a safety tip: find another career track.
The sports world is an insular, elitist circle of athletes and those who fawn over, preen or otherwise assist them. But while athletes themselves are largely (and understandably) regarded as idiots, their coaches and managers should be held to a higher standard. So any coach that berates or otherwise treats badly a member of the media or a fan without reasonable cause should be forced to wear a Boston Red Sox cap -- and nothing else -- during a September Red Sox-Yankees game in the Bronx while sitting in the bleachers.
Anyone other than college students who gets so inebbriated that they wind up vomiting in public should be forced to endure a 30-minute session of striptease performed by their oldest living grandparent. If no grandparent is alive, then the strip-tease should be performed by Jerry Falwell or Rush Limbaugh, whoever is least preferable by the offender.
Any child -- and by child I refer to anyone under the age of 18 -- who is convicted of possessing and/or selling hard drugs (anything beyond marijuana and medication) and/or guns should be flown and air-dropped into Sesketchawan, Canada, with only the clothes on their back and one penny. And anyone guilty of fleeing the scene of an accident where someone is legitimately injured (ie where anyone needs to go to the hospital via ambulance) should be forced to endure an hour as a hood ornament at the annual Mudpie Demolition Derby held in Chatanooga, Tennessee.
People who regularly use cliches in their everyday language should be forced to spend a week in a foreign country, preferably France or Somalia, provided they can't speak the language of their host country and they have no family or friends therein. Each time they use a cliche while being hosted by said foreign country, they forfeit a tooth -- immediately (without novocaine). And if they use really inane, bizarre cliches, like "two in the hand is better than one in the bush," they either get kicked in the testicles or receive a nipple-tweak, depending on the gender of the offender.
A guest who replaces the toilet paper in someone else's home with the paper rolling upward rather than downward should be sentenced to only using unlit gas station bathrooms for one week, without toilet paper or stall doors therein.
People who actively find themselves enjoying the existence of Pauly Shore, Joan Rivers and/or The Clapper need to be tied to a chair, have their eyelids sewn open, and forced to watch 24 straight hours of infomercials -- in Portuguese. And each hour, on the hour, they should get fish-slapped (either trout or striped bass), as a rule.
Finally, anyone who cuts you off in the fast lane and then proceeds to keep their speed ten miles slower than the speed you were going prior to them cutting you off should be pulled over and be given a crushed-ice enema -- roadside -- and then locked in their car for an hour before being allowed to return to the road (I always like to include at least one item that all people can appreciate).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
