Paralysis of the Mind

Merry Christmas one and all. :)

God Bless Commercialism, etc etc so forth.

Hope you're having a festive holiday... I know I am, blogging at 1 a.m. :)

Tonight, former Dolphins running back Ricky Williams will go on "60 Minutes" and try to explain himself to Mike Wallace.

Williams is a fascinating story, a man who had it all and gave it up for reasons that are difficult to figure out. Many of the rumors swirling around his departure from the NFL seem to be true: he apparently did fail a drug test and quit to smoke marijuana, he is enrolled in a 17-month course to become a "holistic healer" and he was traveling around the world right after retirement.

Ricky has been, at best, utterly reviled in the press and by sports fans everywhere. He's been labeled a quitter, an addict, a fool... there has been some public support for his decision (notably Jim Brown, who is now legendary for leaving the game in his prime), but overall, the coverage of his decision has ranged from shock to disdain, with little good coming out of the media white noise. The team's owner, Wayne Huzienga -- devoted follower of the "win one year and sell off everyone on the team the next year to save money" philosophy -- went so far as to demand Williams repay money he had already earned on his contract.

Of course, it hasn't helped Ricky's case one bit that the Dolphins have been completely incompetent on the football field in his absence (Williams is reportedly going to say that their woes aren't his fault tonight in his interview.)

But oddly, I've heard this story before.

In 2002, a young man named Pat Tillman turned down a 3 year contract for $3.6 million to play for the Arizona Cardinals. Tillman had a remarkable college career, and had 2 strong seasons under his belt in the NFL. But he walked away, shaken by 9/11, and joined the Army Rangers.

Of course, everyone knows now that Tillman was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, and he was proclaimed an American hero for his choice to walk away from the money and join... well... his country's team. Sadly, the facts prove that Tillman died from friendly fire as part of a mission that was full of negligence from his superiors. That doesn't change the passion of his choice, though.

Nobody called Tillman a fool. Nobody thought Tillman was leaving the Cardinals high and dry. There wasn't a voice in the crowd that called Tillman a quitter when he left the NFL.

But Tillman walked away. He decided there were things more important than football, and tragically died for them. Williams walked away as well. But his cause wasn't good enough apparently, and while he's unlikely to physically die from what he wants to do with his life, his name has been ruined.

One of the very underrated freedoms of America is the freedom of employment. You may always choose to take a better or different job if you wish. Of course, for many people, that also means a company can fire you for a cheaper replacement. In the NFL, teams release players all the time to keep payrolls low. The practice is rarely criticized in the media, even when a popular player is released from a team with whom he has spent most of his career. These players are relased to save money, and players themselves have no say. They can only hope to catch on with another team at a drastically reduced salary.

Yet Williams proves, once again, that heaven help an employee who wants to stand up to the system. Williams has all the money he'll ever need and most people do not work for the love of their job. So why not let him go? Why must he be vilified? And if he is such an terrible figure for leaving the Dolphins, how can Pat Tillman be such a heroic figure?

To me, both Tillman and Williams are emblematic of the American Dream. Both looked at their work and decided they would dedicate themselves to what they wanted to do. The old question "Would you keep your job if you won the lottery tomorrow?" -- well, neither one of these athletes had to worry much about money (Williams in particular has made millions) and neither one worried about what the next paycheck would bring. They both answered that they had more important things to do than work.

I have no doubt that this world would be a better place if more people decided the same, whether through charity work, more time at home, or even "selfish" pursuits of travel, learning and leisure. There is so much more to the world than just a paycheck and material goods.

Just don't tell the sportswriters.

Bill Simmons said it best: he might have been a comet.

I have never understood exactly why I like sports. But everything that I know I love about these silly little games can be summed up somewhere along Pedro Martinez's career.

He is the great pitcher I've seen in my lifetime. He was a prima donna. He played with intensity, passion and wild abandon. He acted like a prideful fool on occasion. He said wildly outlandish things about the Yankees. He then called them "his daddy." In short, he was the greatest -- and most maddening -- player I've ever seen play. Pedro was never blessed with the biggest or strongest body. His fastball was never the fastest, but that was even more reason to adore him: he used what he had to the absolute fullest.

I liked Nomar. Every Boston fan liked Nomar, but with Pedro, it was something else. His 1999 season probably won't be repeated for a long time. He was Koufax in 66, Gibson in 67... all rolled into one, in the league of steroid monsters, the DH and itty-bitty ballparks. He was always in command, always throwing the ball with almost unbelievable grace.

And now, gone. A comet that is heading out to the cold end of retirement.

Life is short, especially the careers of professional athletes. So, why be bitter? I'll always have the 1998 playoff game where -- shoulder probably torn to shreds -- he came in to close out a clinching playoff game against the Indians with 6 innings of no-hit ball. I'll always have his games against the Devil Rays in the late 90s, where it seemed like he'd strike out 15 every time. And certainly, I'll take his duels with the Yankees - win or lose. And of course, Zimmer on the ground.

So bye, Pedro, farewell. And thank you. Every summer, every 5 days, you made it happen.

Parent sues Wal*Mart over song lyric

Don't get me wrong, suing Wally World ought to be a pastime that more Americans indulge in, believe me. They've got the money, y'know what I mean?

But this, this honestly takes the cake. And I quote from the link above:

The complaint, filed Thursday in Washington County Circuit Court, seeks an order requiring Wal-Mart to either censor or remove the music from its Maryland stores. It also seeks damages of up to $74,500 for each of the thousands of people who bought the music at Wal-Marts in Maryland.
"I don't want any other families to get this, expecting it to be clean. It needs to be removed from the shelves to prevent other children from hearing it," said plaintiff Trevin Skeens of Brownsville.
Skeens said he and his wife, Melanie, let their daughter buy the music for her 13th birthday and were shocked when they played it in their car while driving home.

The song is "Thoughtless" by Evanescense (actually, by the band Korn and covered by Amy and the gang) and I figured the lyric must be absolutely awful. I didn't know the song in question, so I hit up a handy-dandy lyrics website. The lyrics in question:

Why are you trying to make fun of me?
You think it's funny?
What the fuck you think it's doing to me?
You take your turn lashing out at me
I want you crying with your dirty ass in front of me

All of my hate cannot be found
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
So you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming

Thumbing through the pages of my fantasies
I'm above you, smiling at you, drown, drown, drown
I wanna kill and rape you the way you raped me
And I'll pull the trigger
And you're down, down, down

As Ralphie said in "A Christmas Story": Oh Fudge!

One of the problems in America today is that too many parents have become either dumb or lazy. That's a big blanket statement, I know, but once upon a time, parents didn't expect the world to protect their kid from bad influences; that was a parent's job. Parents didn't expect the outside world to cater to their whims for their child; it was the parent's job. And, not that long ago, parents simply would have said no to a child who wanted to buy an album that they simply shouldn't have.

Now, should there have been a parental warning on that CD? I suppose there should have been. The 'F' word -- that I'm sure this poor innocent little 13-year-old girl has NEVER EVER heard before -- is one of the worst of the bunch. Still, what were the parents expecting on this CD? The kid wasn't getting "Kidz Bop" or the latest boy band... she was asking for a CD of a semi-metal semi-hard rock band. It's just a different universe. And parents need to understand these things. No doubt, if this guy's daughter asked for an Eminem CD or Marilyn Manson... he would have said no, because they've already been tagged in public as unsafe for teens.

Furthermore, instead of placing the blame squarely on himself... it's everyone else's fault. It's Wal-Mart for having the CD. It's the label for releasing it. It's the band for playing it. It's Korn for writing it. I keep waiting for the day when either God or a Muse gets sued for helping someone think up a really awful lyric. Anyone want that case?

No, in the end, it's really YOUR fault, dad. You made a mistake, and now you're just compounding it by trying to censor the world. Wal-Mart is an oppressive enough environment for artistic expression. More to the point, though, this girl's father should not simply assume that Wal-Mart is looking out for his needs. That isn't their job and it's just an idiotic assumption. He's the parent and its HIS responsibility, not anyone else's, to hold the line on what he thinks is right or wrong for his daughter. It isn't an easy job to be the censor, but if that's what he thinks is right, he needs to do it, not Wal-Mart, and definitely not rock bands.

If he wants to fight for more warning labels? Fine. It shut the PMRC up. But enough with censorship, please, and enough with these lawsuits that -- unlike malpractice and insurance cases -- are actually humongous wastes of time and effort. Aren't the values crowd the people who are against "frivolous" lawsuits?

Ah, it's been said before, but here it comes again...

Only in America.

Well, it finally happened.

Eliot Spitzer has announced he's running for Governor of New York in 2006.

On a personal level, let me just say: HOORAY!

But trying to look at the upcoming election more objectively...

The first hurdle Spitzer is going to face is beating out any other challengers. There are some Dems who are already lined to run, most notably Andrew Cuomo, former three-term NY governor Mario's son. Beside being a 3-termer, Mario Cuomo is the second-most popular presidental candidate in history (just behind Colin Powell)... who never ran, of course.

Rumors say that Cuomo already has a million dollars in a campaign fund waiting to roll. Spitzer has more, yes, but Cuomo ran a very tight campaign in 2002, just narrowly losing to former comptroller H. Carl McCall in a draining primary that very well could have cost McCall enough money and energy to weaken him against Pataki.

The interesting plot of the race will be if Pataki runs or not. There's already been speculation that he's going to jump his seat for a spot in Bush's cabinet (in the hopes of attaining higher office come 2008) and therefore wouldn't be a factor in the race -- a huge blow for Republicans who are expecting to put up any fight against either the Spitzer or Cuomo bandwagon.

However, should Pataki stay and fight in '06, he might not necessarily have a better chance. Spitzer is highly popular across party lines in the state; attorney general has given him a position where he is a) widely known b) gets lots of active and positive media coverage and most importantly c) works in a job where he doesn't have to expend political capital to get his message out. In fact, Spitzer is considered very fair and generally non-partisan; he plays well with just about everyone in the state. Even the crazed conservative rednecks of upstate (and I would know, living among them as I do... *shiver*)

Now, if Pataki doesn't run, there's a chance that Rudy Guilani could step in and fight. This chills many Democratic hearts, but I think he's got his eyes on a higher office AND furthermore... well, like it or not, the further away we get from 9/11/01, his media heroism of the days following begins to fade a little bit. I appreciate what he did then, and he certainly remains popular in New York. But as time passes, he will lose the hero luster and be just another politician. 2006 might already be too late to cash in all his chips. That said, I don't think he'll run, unless it's for President in 2008.

Looking back, Pataki won his race in 1994 as an underdog running against assumed powerhouse Mario Cuomo. Cuomo, though, was running for his fourth term, and the Pataki bandwagon really took off late in the race. Pataki was the mostly unknown mayor of Peekskill who went to the Assembly and then Senate and was thrust against Cuomo in a battle that Republicans probably didn't think they could really win.

However, excepting that, the 2006 race is very similar. Pataki has enjoyed lots of popularity since 1994 - twice easily winning reelection - but there's no doubt he's vulnerable this time around, especially to a popular pol like Spitzer. A lot of New Yorkers -- on both sides of the aisle -- are not looking forward to another term of Pataki. He's blocked Democrats on too many issues, and he's caved on too many issues for the liking of Republicans.

For example, just today, he signed a minimum wage hike (right wing poison) and a reduction to the terrible Rockerfeller drug laws (a great idea, but again, more right win poison). The budget has been late in this state for 20 straight years, taxes have gone up and up and up and up and debt has gone up right along with them. These things do not play well in the hard-core red state redneck world. Pataki gets away with it now, but he will be hammered on these things in 2006.

Now, Pataki might not run and Rudy Guilani MIGHT throw his hat into the ring. The only reason I don't see this happening is because I think Rudy has a higher office in mind, and will need to clear his calendar for 2008... furthermore, it is interesting to see how much of his hero luster is lost over time. I appreciate his media heroism after 9/11, and he was probably the most popular politician in the world for a time afterward, but as time goes on, he's going to find cashing in all those chips isn't going to be possible. Eventually, he's going to be just another politician.

Things are still early, and nothing is settled yet. But looking at 2006, it's hard not to be excited over the possible top three of the state: Schumer, Clinton and Spitzer. You have to like that idea. And so, trying to put aside my personal feelings again... you can take it to the bank: even if Pataki DOES run or Rudy steps in, come November 2006 we're going to have a Democrat back in the Governor's office, Mr. Eliot Spitzer.

I'll see YOU on the campaign trail.

In the spirit of catbloggity weekend fun, I came across this funny link that pretty well sums up the 2004 campaign via pictures of cats.

I know all about these kittens

However, in other news I'm on my 7th straight day of work (I think my next day off is Thursday, but that's hardly guaranteed) so I need to keep looking at kitties to keep my sanity, so I apologize for the kitty-centric blog as of late. But, dammit, kitties are cute.

I'm equal opportunity, though. At some point we'll get some dog pictures rolling here. Perhaps someday I can elevate my blog to the level of "all animal pictures, all the time". Coming soon, though, my second annual best and worst list for 2004! You don't want to miss it: it will feature few or no kitty pictures. :)

... is my big fat Lou.



With the resurgence of my digital camera, looks like catbloggity weekends are bizzack! To Mars, bitches!