I opened up my home page today where I was hit with this headline:
"Janeane Garofalo Joining Fox's '24'."
Right below it was a story about 14 U.S. troops that died in a helicopter crash. Shows where are priorities are as a nation. We'd rather have the fantasy terrorism stories shown to us over knowing what is going on in the "war" were involved in. I wonder if it's just that people are tired of hearing all the bad news coming out of Iraq. It does depress me when I read stories like that. Anyway, topic for another day.
I'm here to talk about the fake terrorism stories and the characters involved! After initially seeing that Janeane Garofalo was joining the cast I was less than thrilled. They seem to be bringing in some random semi-famous star almost yearly now. Some of them have done decent enough jobs on the show, but I'm tired of going, "Isn't that guy from _____?" I like the new blood; I like the Tonys, Michelles, Edgars, and Chloes. I don't like chanting "Rudy, Rudy!" every time the director walks into CTU.
All that being said, I now think Janeane will do a decent job on the show. I had forgotten that she was also on the West Wing, so she does have some experience working with television drama. We shall see if she's any good in due time.
Oh and I can't wait for 24 to start again. I think I'm having withdrawals. I haven't seen Jack an unnecessarily brutal killing in months.
~Mikey D
I was just listening to Mike and Mike as they were coming up with their list of "Hall of Shame" sports figures. This is a list of sports figures that did not reach their potential because of drug abuse, violence, etc. Sadly it was quite a long list, and I disagreed with quite a few (Jason Grimsley?), but there was one name that struck me as odd:
Tim Donaghy.
Why was he on this list? I thought it was a list of sports figures. Tim Donaghy, in my opinion, is not a sports figure. He is a figure, and his job involves sports, but I don't think he is a sports figure. Just mentioning the words 'sports figures' makes you think of athletes; the guys that actually play the game. Even still, how did he make that list??? Not once have a I thought that Tim Donaghy didn't reach his potential as a referee because of his illegal betting on basketball. I'm not sitting here going, "Man, Tim was in the prime of his reffing career, it's too bad he did what he did and had it all cut short."
Maybe they didn't explain the list very well and I'm misconstruing what they are trying to show. All I know is a referee isn't a sports figure, and I don't like that Donaghy is on that list.
~Mikey D
Guess what television service I have still? That's right, it's Comcast.
I never thought I could be more angry with a television service provider than Comcast, but Directv went and showed me a whole new level of pissed on Friday.
Friday was supposed to be a glorious day for me. I was to get rid of my Comcast cable after a long month, get my brand new dish, and get fifty billion-trillion channels of pure sports entertainment. I was not supposed to be at my local Comcast store the next day begging to have my service turned back on.
My Directv installation was supposed to happen on Friday, between 1-5 p.m. I had made this date two weeks in advance, and received two (count em') phone calls making sure I would be there on installation day. To each I replied with an, "I wouldn't miss it for the world," statement. Foolish. Why? Well, after sitting for four hours waiting for my savior to arrive, I was forced to call and ask, "Um, where the fuck are you?"
I was told that there was a 45 minute grace period given to all technicians, and that if my technician didn't arrive within 45 minutes, I would be given a $100 credit to my account. A grace period? I thought the whole reason they give and indefinite time, like between 1-5, was because they are unable to show up at a precise time. Because of this I don't think they should be given a grace period. Just say between 1-5:45 if that's the case. But that's an argument for another day. So I continued to sit and wait, wondering if I could go without TV for a night, and finding myself actually rooting against the guy showing up so I could receive my $100 credit.
Well my rooting paid off, because he didn't show. I called Directv back, and received my $100 credit. I was then told Directv would try and contact the technician, and then they would contact me. Ten minutes later I received a call asking if I had gotten a call from the tech. I had not. The operator actually asked me to tell the technician, if he called, to call the home office. They didn't even know where their own techs were.
Ten more minutes later, I got a call back from the office. This is the part in my uninteresting story that really pissed me off. The operator told me they contacted the tech and that he actually indeed showed up between 1-1:30, knocked several times, and tried calling my cell phone. I immediately cried bullshit. I was angry beyond belief. It's one thing that they missed my scheduled appointment. Sometimes shit happens. I'm an understanding guy, but don't fucking lie to me and put it on me. That's unacceptable and poor business.
Where was I during that time? I was sitting 3 feet from the front door eating my lunch. My cell phone? Right fucking next to me. I could not believe what I was hearing.
Apparently Directv found out, and failed to inform me, that my apartment needs to be facing the southwest to get a signal. My apartment does not. Why didn't they tell me this before I took off a 1/2 day from work and sat waiting in my apartment for four hours? Why didn't they tell me this before I spent the day disconnecting my Comcast service?
Now I have Comcast again, and I will not have my NFL Sunday ticket. On the bright side I do have a $100 credit to my account that I can't use. Yippee. I hate all TV services; it's official.
~Mikey D
My girlfriend just bought me a Nintendo Wii...and Madden 2008.
Why? Because it was Maddenoliday, the greatest day of the year. She is the best girlfriend ever because she has now celebrated Maddenoliday two years in a row, and did so this year without me really promoting it.
Awesome. Just awesome. I'm going to go play my Wii =).
~Mikey D
Okay, I've been thinking about this a lot the past few days (when I haven't been thinking about muffins), and I need to understand what defines 'art' and 'fashion'. What makes something art, and what makes something fashion?
I think what I am tired of hearing is the whole "anything can be art" or "anything can be fashion" argument. Perhaps I just like to live in a world of categorization, where everything is clearly defined and organized. To me there should be boundaries to these two words; something that separates them from being included in the "anything can be..." statements.
Art: The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
The key part is the last part- "more than ordinary significance." But what constitutes significance? Moreover, what constitutes ordinary significance? Art has, and always will be, subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure, if you will. But what makes a piece by Monet so extraordinary? Is it the public mass perception that Monet indeed made beautiful art? What about the one person who thinks Monet did terrible work. Does that mean Monet didn't create art, according to the definition? Well who is right, the man who didn't think Monet made Art, or the thousands who agree that he did? Are both right? It is this subjectiveness that bothers me, as I want the true answer.
Fashion: a prevailing custom or style of dress, etiquette, socializing, etc.
Let's revisit my toothpick argument. It is not proper etiquette to chew a toothpick after clearning your teeth, or walk around with one in your mouth afterwards. It is not a style of dress because you don't physically wear it. It is not a prevailing custom, in my opinion, because a majority of people don't walk around with toothpicks in their mouths. You could argue that a custom doesn't have to have a majority, but then is it really prevailing? For example, what's custom to one family might not be custom to the rest of the world. Does that mean the one family's custom is not fashion? In my opinion it means just that. But again, like art, fashion is a subjective term. People who use the "anything can be..." see that one family's custom as fashion.
I keep searching for clearly defined answers to my questions when I know they're impossible to find. I just want to know what is and what isn't in this world. I hate grey areas, and my own toothpick post has brought me into a grey area. Once again, I boo toothpicks.
~Mikey D
Jim Gaffigan, in his comedy routine, jokes, "Sometimes we try and disguise the fact that we're eating cake. 'It's breakfast, I can't have cake...I'll have a muffin!' You know the difference between a cake and a muffin? Nothing! A muffin is a bald cupcake. And we know it!"
You know why it's funny? It's funny because it's true!
The past couple of days I have been trying to tell everyone that will listen (including our waiter at Chili's) that muffins are indeed a type of cake, and not just a bread. But no matter how hard I try to convince people with my extremely valid points, they still believe that a muffin is just another type of bread. Today I will lay it out for you, fact by fact, so there is only hard evidence for you to look at. Today you all will see that a muffin is more a cake than a bread, and when the next time a person asks you, 'Is a muffin cake or bread?', your answer will be a resounding, 'CAKE!'
To start, let's look at three similar recipes. I have chosen to look at lemon cake, lemon muffin, and lemon bread recipes. For this part I want to show people that a muffin can be BOTH a cake and a bread at the same time. There are instances in which this occurs. Here is one:
Lemon Cake: (http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,166,136189-244196,00.html)
4 eggs
2 1/2 cups of sugar
3/4 cup of lemon juice
2 tsp grated lemon
3 cups flour
1/2 pound of butter
1 tsp salt
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
3/4 cup buttermilk
1 tsp vanilla extract
Lemon Bread (http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,184,145169-236201,00.html)
2 eggs
1 cup of sugar
grated rind of 1 lemon
1/2 cup milk
1 1/2 cup flour
dash of salt
1 tsp baking powder
Icing: Juice from 1 lemon, 1/2 cup sugar
Lemon Muffins (http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,184,151175-239204,00.html):
3 eggs
1 cup of sugar
1/4 lemon juice
1 peel of lemon
2 cups of flour
1/2 cup butter
1/2 tsp salt
1 tsp baking powder
1/4 tsp almond extract
If we begin to look at the ingredients we can see that all three recipes have very much in common. They all share these common ingredients: Eggs, sugar, lemon juice, lemon zest/peel, flour, butter, salt, and baking powder. Whats more, the cake and bread recipes are practically identical, and the only difference between them and the muffin recipe is essentially less than a cup of milk. From this I am going to conclude that a muffin can be, at times, both a cake and a bread, based on the ingredients found in both. (The arguement could also be made that cake is bread at times, but let's save that one for a rainy day.)
I'm arguing, however, that a muffin is more a cake than a bread. For this I feel we need to look at three different random (non-similar) recipes and compare them. By doing this we will see what ingredients are shared and hopefully we can make a better comparison as to which is more similar. Will three non-similar recipes show that a muffin has more in common with cake or bread? I have chosen, at random, three recipes by typing in 'cake recipes', 'muffin recipes', and 'bread recipes' on my web browser's home page and choosing the first recipe that came up. Here are the recipes for each:
Strawberry Shortcake (http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Strawberry-Shortcake/Detail.aspx):
3 pints fresh strawberries
1/2 cup white sugar
2 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
4 teaspoons baking powder
2 tablespoons white sugar
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/3 cup shortening
1 egg
2/3 cup milk
2 cups whipped heavy cream
Almond Muffins (http://www.muffinrecipes.net/almond-muffins.html)
1 medium egg
2 cups of flour
3/4 cup of milk
1/2 cup of almonds
1/2 cup of sugar
1/2 cup of oil
3 teaspoons of baking powder
1/2 teaspoon of almond extract
1/4 teaspoon of cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon of nutmeg
1/8 teaspoon of salt
Baxis White Bread (http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Baxis-White-Bread/Detail.aspx)
1 1/2 teaspoons active dry yeast
2 cups bread flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon white sugar
1 tablespoon dry milk powder
1 tablespoon butter, softened
3/4 cup water
Comparing the strawberry shortcake with the almond muffins first, we see that they share these common ingredients: eggs, flour, milk, sugar, salt, shortening/oil, and baking powder. Really the only difference in ingredients are each recipe's particular flavors, like strawberries and almonds. The fundamental ingredients are essentially the same!
When comparing the baxis white bread to the almond muffins, we see that they share these common ingredients: sugar, salt, and milk (dry milk+ water...basically the same as milk). The similarities in ingredients are far less, and the ingredients themselves are vastly different. In this bread recipe, the notable different ingredients are yeast and bread flour. In most breads it's common to find yeast and bread flour included, causing the bread to rise more than in a muffin or cake. In fact, it is discouraged to use bread flour in place of all-purpose flour when making cakes or muffins, as using, "bread flour in place of all-purpose will produce a tough, chewy, disappointing result." (http://www.ochef.com/97.htm) It is the yeasting agent that is found in bread that really supplies the fundamental difference between muffins/cake and bread.
The definition of each three terms, cake, muffin, and bread, even speaks of this difference:
Bread~"food made from dough of flour or meal and usually raised with yeast or baking powder and then baked."
Cake~"a sweet, baked, bread-like food, made with or without shortening, and usually containing flour, sugar, baking powder or soda, eggs, and liquid flavoring."
Muffin~"an individual cup-shaped quick bread made with wheat flour, cornmeal, or the like, and baked in a pan (muffin pan) containing a series of cup-like forms"
Which definitions are the most similar? Cake and muffins. Notice how in the definition of bread they speak of the yeast agent. And I know that you are already saying to me, "Mike, it says the words 'quick bread' in the definition, so it's obviously a type of bread!" Do you know the difference between quick bread and bread though? Bread uses a yeast to make the dough rise, while a quick bread uses chemical leaveners (baking soda and the such) to make the dough, "relatively uniform, reliable, and quick." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_bread) Now, let me ask you, what else uses chemical leaveners instead of yeast to rise? That's right. Cake.
So when looking at three random recipes of cake, muffin, and bread, it is clear to see that the muffin has much more in common with cake than bread, because in essence a muffin is a miniature version of cake. And although there are times that a muffin can fit into both a bread and cake category, the muffin can always fit into the cake category. It's kind of like how a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square- to put it into mathematical terms. Because of this, I believe we need to get rid of the notion that a muffin is just a bread, when it is more cake than anything.
If you are not happy with the three random recipes I have chosen, pick three on your own. I have done multiple comparisons between the three, and have come up with the same results. There are times when the muffin is similar to both the cake and bread. There are also times when the muffin is similar just to the cake, and not the bread. Whichever examples you choose, you will see that the muffin is, to refer back to Jim Gaffigan, "a bald cupcake."
Even with all this information, I can still hear the naysayers...
"Well a muffin is more nutritionally healthy than cake." Not really. I'm not going to present all the data, but I encourage you to check out http://www.nutritiondata.com/. Of course you will find the cases where the nutritional data for a certain muffin are similar to both the bread and cake nutritional information, but on a whole, you will see that a muffin is more closely related nutritionally to cake. It's follows the same theory as I presented above, about how there are times when a muffin is like a bread, but always like cake.
"It's about the proportions of the ingredients." While it is true that a single muffin has less amounts of the common ingredients in an entire cake, I feel it is easy to say that if we were to make a "muffin cake" it would be quite similar nutritionally and proportionally in ingredients when compared to an entire cake.
"We don't eat muffins for dessert, we have them for breakfast, like toast." Yeah, but you know what? You could have a muffin for dessert, you just choose not to. I refer you to the Nutrition Action Healthletter (http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_99/best_and_worst.html) where they talk about the best and worst breakfasts. There they refer to a muffin as, "nothing more than breakfast cake."
It is quite apparent in society today that the fact that people still consider all muffins bread is a widely popular misnomer. I'm sure, in some way, that it has played its part in our nation's obesity problem, as millions of people each morning think they are eating a nutritionally healthy "bread" item. This couldn't be further from the truth. I have showed you how and why a muffin is more cake than bread, and now it's up to you to accept this as fact. Get rid of your preconceived notions of muffins, and accept the fact that it's a type of cake. With this post I officially end my debating on this topic. Done and done.
~Mikey D
Well I had my first week of training as a mathematics teacher (I suppose the title of this post implied that). Here are the highlights of my week:
~The training itself was boring (to say the least), but useful. It's obviously no fun to sit in a classroom in the middle of summer going through a math book for seven hours a day for five straight days, but it was helpful to see the material I was going to teach. I feel much more comfortable now after seeing how certain lessons should be taught and knowing what resources I have available.
~I actually had a full work week. I will get paid, something I haven't really had happen to me in about a year now. Sad isn't it?
~I was much better socially than I could ever have imagined. After a week in the class, everyone knew me and were joking around with me. This is a big step for me, as I'm usually the shy kid in class. I raised my hand a ton to answer questions, and gave smart-ass responses to people that were idiots (so I was being myself basically). I was really proud of myself for being more outgoing than I've ever been.
~There were three people from Michigan in my training group (out of 16), including myself. Both were from Central. Even our trainer was from Michigan, as she went to U of M. I think we are going to have to rename Maryland to "Michigan 2" or "Michigan Refugees".
~Both Central Michigan girls teased me about State being a "farming school" where all we do is "farm". I know we used to be the MAC, but is that still the stereotype about State these days? They proceeded to brag about how Central is the best school to go to if you want to be a teacher, and that I should have gone there instead of milking cows. I proceeded to pull out the U.S. News' rankings of colleges of education, and I pointed out how I failed to see Central's name on the list. Oh, but next to number 1, there was the good old cow milking college, MSU. It was my own personal, "scoreboard!" moment.
~My trainer tried to make fun of my going to State, saying that all State does is churn out a bunch of smart asses. I found it hard to argue with her, as I am now ten times the smart ass I was when I entered State as a freshman. Perhaps she is right.
~I actually got asked out by the girl who sat next to me, despite my subtle hints of having a girlfriend ("My girlfriend in I live in Columbia"). It was still flattering though, and I will take it as a compliment.
~Being asked about by the aforementioned girl, however, has made me realize one of my biggest turnoffs: stalking. I don't like to be stalked. Everyday after class she would wait for me and walk me to my car. Yeah, she walked me to my car. Then, since we traveled on the same highway home, she would literally follow me for twenty miles, bumper-to-bumper, until her exit came. Just weird, and I decided I didn't like it.
~As a teacher there is the common saying, "There's always one in class". There's always one class clown. There's always one troublemaker. Well in my training class, there was the girl who would not shut the fuck up. Each day she would ask the most asinine questions imaginable, over and over. When the trainer would ask a question, she would be the first to raise her hand. When called upon she'd ramble for two minutes, and then admit that she didn't know the answer. She almost made me commit murder, and I feel as if that would have been a bad thing.
~On the plus side, because she was such a dumb fuck, the rest of the class just made fun of her behind her back. We even kept tallys of how many times she asked questions in one day. Her high total was 37, which is kind of remarkable if you think about it. By the end of the week even our trainer was laughing at her when she asked a question.
~There were only two boys in the class, and they both sat on the opposite side of the room of me. I made it a point to try and bond with them, but it didn't happen until the last day. I went and sat with one of them at lunch instead of going out with my school. And low and behold there the guy was reading a fantasy football magazine. We talked for an hour straight about fantasy and football in general. He was a Giants fan, and the other guy turned out to be Browns fan. He felt my pain on the losing year after year thing. I am kicking myself now because it took until Friday afternoon to get to know these guys, when I could have been talking football and sports with them all week. Shame on me.
So that was my week in a nutshell. Nothing too exciting, I just wanted to share.
~Mikey D
Barry Bonds should not be a Hall of Famer. Period.
Baseball is a game rich in history. It's records are sacred and an intrical part to the game. Because of this, baseball takes players that do the game wrong very seriously in order to preserve its prestige. The Black Sox scandal of 1919, where the White Sox threw the World Series against the Reds set the precedent for baseball discipline. As prevalent as steroids are today, gambling and game fixing was just as rampid then. The reaction was harsh, as eight members of the White Sox were banned for life, including the now infamous Shoeless Joe Jackson. Fast forward almost seventy years when Pete Rose was alleged to have bet on baseball. The reaction was just as harsh, as Rose, baseball's all-time hit king, shared the same fate as the eight members of the Black Sox- banishment from the game of baseball. Integrity is first and foremost in the eyes of baseball, as it was preserves the mystique of the game and the records is holds so dear.
I'm not saying that players who have used steroids should be banned for life from the game. It was obviously something that baseball allowed to happen on their watch, and now they must fix. But like players of the past who received lifetime bans from the game, they must share the same fate: a tarnished image and an empty spot in Cooperstown that could have held their plaque of immortality. The common denominator between the past and present is that cheaters don't prosper in baseball. It's only fair that Barry share his fate with those cheaters of the past. And not just Barry- McGwire, Palmeiro, and Sosa too. And anyone else that comes to light. They will be acknowledged as cheaters, who chose to play the game the wrong way, and for that they pay the ultimate price for all eternity- baseball disgrace.
Should the records be erased from the record books? I don't want them too. I want them to stand. I watched Bonds break Aaron's record, and it was a very weird feeling that swept over my body. I was not joyous, I was not sad...I was emotionless. After Bonds spoke and thanked everyone, my anger resurfaced. That whole night, those fans...it was all so fake. Bonds thanking those who supported him. Who are they really? Bonds hasn't given the media or fans the time of day throughout his career. The fans cheering. Would they cheer if he wasn't on their team? Would they still be in denial over Barry's steroid use? The greatest baseball record was broken, and I had no emotion except anger running through my body. I was literally ashamed to be a baseball fan that night.
I also realized, however, that I don't want the record books erased. I cannot wait until the next person challenges the home run record (and someone will). I'm confident the next person that challenges the record will do it the right way, without the performance enhancers. And when that person breaks Bonds' hollow record I will be overcome with joy. It will be a celebration of a new and worthy home run king, while also celebrating the fall of an evil villain named Bonds. And that moment will be one to remember. That's one I want to see. A hero will be born that night.
My plea to the baseball voters of the world is to omit Bonds from the Hall of Fame. I know you want to debate about his worthiness, whether his pre-steroid numbers were good enough, or whether he was the product of an era. Maybe writers will still play the 'innocent until proven guilty' card. Just remember that even though he had pre-steroid numbers, he still did steroids. Just remember that even though he was a product of an era, he still did steroids. And even though he has yet to be indicted, it's clear to everyone that he did steroids. Bonds did steroids. Bonds cheated. Bonds should not be allowed in the Hall of Fame- ever.
~Mikey D
Let me preface this random venting by saying I have no problem with toothpicks. I think they are a wonderful, simple, useful invention. I can't tell you how many times I've eaten a lovely dinner, only to have remnants of said dinner stuck in my teeth afterwards. And what came to my rescue each time? That's right. Toothpicks.
Here's my problem with toothpicks, and maybe since I've moved back closer to the south it's more prevalent, but I absolutely hate people that walk around with toothpicks hanging out of their mouths. It irks me beyond belief, yet people commit this visual atrocity in front of me constantly. Like the other night in the movie theater, a man was with his wife going up and down aisles looking for a suitable seat- with a toothpick in his mouth. Were we in a restaurant? No! Then there is no reason to walk around with a toothpick in your mouth.
Think about it people. The man is walking around with a tool he used to pick crap out of his teeth. Does that not disgust people just a little bit? Do you see me walking around with dental floss wedged and hanging from between my teeth? Or how about me gnawing on my toothbrush as I walk down the street? What makes this teeth cleaning tool okay to walk around with?
I have a couple possible theories. My first is that walking around with a toothpick in your mouth is a visual signal to other people that you are content. Like the fat man sitting at the dinner table with his pants undone rubbing his belly happily, a person that walks around with a toothpick is sending the signal to the world that he has just enjoyed an incredible and satisfying meal. Unfortunately, as a self-proclaimed representative of the world, I have declared that the world doesn't give a shit what you just ate, and would much rather slap that fucking toothpick right out of your mouth.
My second theory is that the toothpick is cultural related. I think all of us have, at some point in our lives, seen or had a stereotypical image of a "country boy". What do we picture? Overalls, plaid shirts, dirty hands, and usually, something in their mouth. A piece of straw? A pipe or cigarette? Chew? Perhaps a toothpick? Maybe I'm way off base here, as I have no factual evidence to back my theory up (other than my nursery rhyme book I had when I was a kid that featured 'Little Boy Blue' chewing on a piece of straw- if that counts at all). It just seems that having something to chew or play with in your mouth is something typical to southern culture. (If you are like me you just laughed at how sexually dirty that last sentence was.)
My third theory is that the toothpick is a sign of male toughness. Again I'm generalizing here, but doesn't it always seem like the guys that walk around with toothpicks in their mouths have an aura of toughness and "I'll kill you mentality" about them? Perhaps it is this aura that keeps me from doing what I truly desire, which is to dropkick the toothpick-chewing person's face so hard that the toothpick pierces their throat, causing massive bleeding and death.
Whichever theory(s) is correct (if any), it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that I hate people that walk around with toothpicks in their mouth, and they need to stop doing it immediately. I don't walk around with my self-cleaning products hanging out of my mouth, so you shouldn't either. Perhaps I will though. Maybe I'll leave my used Q-tips hanging out of my ears. Sounds gross and weird, right? But if you think about it, it's not that different than having a used toothpick hanging out of your mouth. One is just mistakenly socially accepted.
Be with me on this public. Hate the toothpick-people like I do.
Moving from Michigan to Maryland was an exciting and emotional time for me. It was the start of the next chapter in my life. I was saying goodbye to all my old familiarities in Michigan, and beginning in a new-old land (I used to live here...although it doesn't show by my directionally challenged ass). Leaving behind my friends and family was hard, but there were plenty of pluses by coming here to Maryland. I can further my relationship with Grace. I start my first real teaching job.
And I finally get to rid myself of Knob Hill cable television!!! Praise the Lord, hallelujah! For three years that poor excuse for a cable service has been making me curse more than when I watched a Detroit Lion's football game (that's a lot, especially during the Joey Harrington/Charles Rogers/Mike Williams era). Every time I flipped on the television a different channel seemed to be out of service. For a period of time a good fifteen channels were out in a row. Comedy Central was absent for the last year of our service. Fox Sports (home to our Pistons, Red Wings, and Tigers games) almost always seemed to be out of service during our teams' games. If we did get service (if you could call it that), it would be choppy and delayed. Not enjoyable to say the least.
But now I'm in Maryland! Now I get to enjoy all the benefits of Comcast cable and internet. No longer will I lose the channels I crave to watch! No longer will I curse at my television like it's some asshole that continues to piss me off (Kevin)! Finally, after three years, I'll be able to sit and enjoy television like it was meant to be enjoyed.
Except I'm here now, and I'm not enjoying it in the least. I kind of hate it a lot.
It all started my first day here in Maryland. On our move-in day the Comcast technician was supposed to install our cable and internet. We had made the reservation with Comcast a month earlier, and got a deal for cable and internet at $66. I was excited! On move in day, however, the Comcast technician did not show up. And when I called Comcast, they had no record of my account. No record, even though I made the reservation in person with a Comcast representative and filled out all the necessary paperwork. Apparently, "Sometimes the paperwork just doesn't get filed properly." Really? Ya think? Very unprofessional to say the least.
The next day I returned to the same Comcast I had placed my order with a month earlier. Not only had my paperwork not been filed, it was completely missing. So I had to place a new order. This time my cable and internet package came to $87, twenty-one dollars more than when I had agreed upon when I originally placed the order. Why was there such a difference in price? The person who took my order couldn't give me an answer. I was baffled.
Nonetheless I wanted cable, and I wanted my internet. We had both installed, and for the time being, I was semi-satisfied. Then Grace bought a brand new laptop which had a wireless card. Unfortunately we did not have a router installed with our modem, so she was unable to use the wireless card. I called Comcast to ask how much extra it would be to rent a router, and they said only $2 a month, and that all I had to do was go to an area Comcast headquarters to pick one up.
I thought that was reasonable, so I went back to Comcast. When I asked for a router, I was informed that they had no routers in the building. Apparently they don't just give routers to customers to rent. I had to have it "professionally" installed. So the customer service representative I spoke with obviously wasn't clued into their own business operations. Anyway, I told them I could do it myself, but they refused to give me one. So I asked them to come install it for me.
The kicker? Of the $87 dollars I was spending on cable and internet, $67 was for cable, and $20 was for internet. To add the router I would have had to pay the $2 rental fee per month, installation costs, and an extra $25 a month for the internet, bumping my total bill to $115 a month after taxes- all so Grace could use her wireless card. Instead Grace and I just went out and spent $75 bucks on a router, and that was that.
My question: How can Comcast be so abusive to their customers? Because they can? That's not a very good reason. They are gouging their customers on prices and offering the worst possible customer service I have ever seen. Their prices seem to vary daily, and they seem to try and get money out their customers for every little service they do. And don't think I'm an isolated pissed off customer. There are plenty:
http://www.seaofhumanity.com/archives/000329.html
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976857905
http://svcs.dvnt.com/~moose/comcast-sucks.html
http://www.ichbineinauslander.com/archives/000265.php
http://www.resellerratings.com/forum/t62844.html
http://www.bizmonthly.com/11_2003/18.html
My resolution is to now lose the Comcast. I will be ordering DirectTV, receiving the "Premium" package (every single channel in the world available to me) and the NFL Sunday Ticket (every single NFL game every week) for the same price I pay for my 2nd tier Comcast package. I will be going to Verizon for my internet, paying the same price I currently am ($20) to Comcast. Except I will be paying Verizon, and not Comcast, and that will make me sleep better at night.
I know I'm only one customer and Comcast could really give a crap if they lose me, but if people like me blog about how horrible Comcast truly is, then maybe Comcast's reputation will be slightly soiled and more people will turn away from making the same mistake I did.
The worst part about this whole situation? I long for Knob Hill cable. That's just wrong.
~Mikey D
Alright, onto the AFC. This one is much harder to pick in my opinion because there are more "good" teams than in the NFC. But here goes nothing. Literally.
AFC North:
1) Baltimore Ravens~ The defense is still the best in the league. I thought they were on the downhill defensively last year, but boy did they prove me wrong. On offense I think that this is Clayton's breakout year, although I question whether McNair can get him the ball. I think the pick-up of McGahee is what puts them on top of this division though. Jamaal Lewis was good- in 2003- but hasn't been since. If the O-Line develops, McGahee will bring a wonderful balance to this offense.
2) Pittsburgh Steelers~ I think this could be a bounce back year. They have so much talent and pride that it's hard for me not to think so. I like Big Ben to come out firing this year, with Ward, Miller, and an emerging Santonio Holmes. Throw in fast Willy, and the offense looks alright. I love what Pittsburgh did in the draft getting a Michigan man in Woodley, and I think new head coach Mike Tomlin will get the most out of his D. Can the secondary hold up though?
3) Cincinnati Bengals~ Just not a believer- yet. I'm not going to doubt the offense, with Palmer, Johnson, Houshmanzadeh, and Rudi. They'll be fine there. I'm still waiting for the Bengals to develop a defense though. With Thurman not coming back at linebacker, Cincy once again needs improvement in that area. Drafting Hall from Michigan was needed, but it's hard to count on rookies. Still, I definitely wouldn't be shocked if Cincy scored its way to the top, much like the Saints.
4) Cleveland Browns~ Brady Quinn or Charlie Frye? Either way they suck. Jamaal Lewis? Stick a fork in him, he's done. Winslow? I wonder what's going to put him on the IR this year. Braylon? I like him, it's just too bad he's on the Browns. Couple all those offensive questions with crap for a defense, and you have one of the worst teams in football.
AFC South~
1) Indianapolis Colts~ Almost by default, as the other teams in this division have too many question marks in my opinion. With the Colts I wonder about the defense. Like every Super Bowl winner, other teams have picked at the Colts players. Losing Harper doesn't help in the secondary. If they can patch up the defense, I think they'll be fine. Also, replacing Simon at LT is a huge must. Who will protect Peyton's blindside?
2) Jacksonville Jaguars~ Tough and physical, but do they have the offense? They certainly have the running game with Fred Taylor, Maurice Jones-Drew, and Greg Jones, but what about a passing attack? Do you trust Byron Leftwich and David Garrard throwing to nobody? I don't. Still the Jags will beat down weaker teams like it's nobody's business. All-around teams though? They'll struggle.
3) Tennessee Titans~ A terrible off season for them. Vince has zero weapons to throw to, a non-existent running game, and a depleted defense. But Young had little to work with last year and did alright, so I expect him to continue where he left off. Pac Man Jones is gone, which may be good or bad, but the addition of Nick Harper lessens the blow. Titans finish third, only because Houston is in their division.
4) Houston Texans~ A new QB! Unfortunately it's the same offensive line. A year after the Bush fiasco, Houston will line up Ahman Green in the backfield. Bush...or Ahman. Whoops. No O-Line, a new QB, an aging running back, one receiver, and a young defense. Uh-oh.
AFC East:
1) New England Patriots~ I don't want to pick them here because everyone else is, but they looks so good on paper! Getting Thomas upgrades the LB spot, and getting Harrison back at safety is huge. Brady goes from having no receiving weapons to having two studs in Moss and Stallworth. Put them in with Maroney, Welker, and Ben Watson at TE and the Patriots suddenly have a potent offensive attack. The most complete and well coached team gets the nod here.
2) Miami Dolphins~ Saban out, Cameron in. He's an offensive wizard, and I think having a veteran like Trent Green who's played for Cameron makes the offense respectable. Chambers is coming off a down year, but Booker is coming off a decent one. Ronnie Brown is a productive back, so if this offense can come together, it could be serviceable. The defense got a supposed upgrade with Jerry Porter, but he's past his prime, so I'm not sure how much help he'll provide. But Thomas and Taylor are still there, so the Dolphins will be decent.
3) New York Jets~ Great season for the Jets last year, but a lot had to do with their schedule. They played a lot of cupcakes and teams that had off seasons/games. It's a new season, but some of the same questions remain. Can Pennington and Coles stay healthy? I like the running game with the addition of Thomas Jones. The man's a beast and is a definite upgrade. Revis will help in the defensive secondary, and the defense should be solid. Like the Dolphins there are some questions, and I think whichever team gels better will take the second spot in the division.
4) Buffalo Bills~ You get rid of McGahee, Spikes, and Williams, three of your best players. You lose Clements to free agency. It looks like the Bills are rebuilding an already bad team. Lohsman looked good towards the end of last year, as did Lee Evans. The addition of all-purpose back Marshawn Lynch should make this offense interesting and intriguing to say the least. But the defense will really hold this team back, as a team that loses it's top corner and run stopper is in trouble.
AFC West~
1) Denver Broncos~ I loved their off season. Cutler looks like he can manage the offense, and it helps having a beast of a running back in Travis Henry. Javon Walker, Rod Smith, and Brandon Marshall are all quality receivers to throw to, and the addition of tight end Daniel Grahm makes the offense even more attractive. The defense features two shut down corners in Champ Bailey and Dre Bly, with a defensive front that was upgraded in the draft. The defense looks like it might be almost impossible to throw on with top flight corners and pressure D-Line.
2) San Diego Chargers~ The team returns with all its pieces from last year, but loses all its coaches. That's rough, and I don't think they'll bounce back like people think they will. Rivers is still young, and he doesn't have much to throw to still. It's a young receiving corps. The O-Line and defense are great though, and will carry this team to plenty of wins. Oh yeah, and that guy with the initials L.T.
3) Oakland Raiders~ Yeah, not last! The offense will once again be terrible, there's no doubt about that. Culpepper and McCown will be okay starters until Russel gets in, and a backfield of Jordan, Rhodes, and Michael Bush isn't all that bad. There is, however, no receivers on this team (Mike Williams doesn't count), and no offensive line. It just can't be as bad as last year, it just can't. The defense was a top-10 defense last year though, and I see no reason why it won't be again this year. Their D actually kept them in quite a few games last year, and won a couple for them as well (like against the Steelers, returning Big Ben picks for TDs, while their QB threw for negative yardage).
4) Kansas City Chiefs~ You have L.J. and Priest, but that's it. Your offensive line has gone from a strength to a weakness, you still have no receiving corps, Gonzalez isn't getting younger, and your possible starting QB is a guy named Croyle. Also, Coach Edwards has never been considered one for his offensive prowess, so that's probably not going to help matters. On top of that you have a suspect defense. When was the last time you can remember the Chief's defense stopping anybody? I think we have to go back to the Derrick Thomas days.
Alright, time for the playoff picture:
1) Denver Broncos
2) New England Patriots
3) Indianapolis Colts
4) Baltimore Ravens
5) San Diego Chargers
6) Pittsburgh Steelers
Wildcard:
Pittsburgh at Indianapolis: Bounce back year for the Steelers ends here. The Indy offense will expose the Steeler secondary, and the Colts will light up the scoreboard.
San Diego at Baltimore: What a treat to have this match-up in the first round. An absolute slug fest between two of the top defenses in the NFL, with Baltimore coming out on top. The balanced offense helps Baltimore score just enough as the Ravens soar in front of the home crowd.
Division:
Indianapolis at New England: Revenge. The Patriots know they should have won last year. The game was theirs. Not going to happen two years in a row. Brady uses all his weapons to dismantle the patchwork Indy D, and the Patriots move on.
Baltimore at Denver: Baltimore flies across the country to take on another physical football team after playing San Diego. They are feeling it. The defense, however, won't let them down. They intercept three Cutler passes and break Travis Henry's leg on the first play of the game. Baltimore wins in an upset over the AFC's top team.
Conference Championship:
Baltimore at New England: It's cold. Baltimore has just fought two fifteen-round fights with San Diego and Denver. New England is fresh, after expending little energy against the soft Colts. Their fresh legs are their biggest advantage as Moss, Stallworth, and Welker spread the field and Maroney slices through the defense with big 8-10 yard runs. Baltimore is gassed. And cold. And going home. New England wins by ten.
There it is. The New England Patriots will represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. A rematch against Philly. My Superbowl pick? Hmmm....
Superbowl:
The New England Patriots versus The Philadelphia Eagles: New England comes into this game as the overwhelming favorite, loaded with talent and surviving the brutal AFC. The Eagles get little respect, but are hungry. New England comes out lackadaisical, and the Eagles jump out early. In the second half the Patriots fight back, and take a late fourth quarter lead. This is McNabb's year, however, and he drives the Eagles inside Patriot territory with under two minutes to go. On a 3rd and 7 from the Patriot 12 yard line, Philly spreads three receivers wide and runs the draw play to Westbrook. He scampers into the end zone virtually untouched, giving Philly a five point lead with only twenty seconds to play. A couple of failed Hail-Mary's and the Eagles are Superbowl champions, 31-26. McNabb then breaks both his legs tripping over Brain Westbrook, whose ankles snap in two after McNabb's protruding leg bone falls and crushes them. Hey, they're going to get hurt sometime. Just a matter of how...
Congrats to the Eagles, my Superbowl champs.
Okay, I'm going to make my picks for the upcoming NFL Season. Yes it's only the preseason, but I can't see much changing my mind on picks other than a colossal injury to a team. In that case, I am allowing myself to change my picks. Otherwise, these are my set in stone picks. Let's start with the NFC.
NFC North:
1) Chicago Bears~ Not as good as last year, but should be better on offense. I think teams will run all over the Bears, as I don't think their D-Line is as good. If teams do that, they can control tempo and wear down the D. Still, in a weak NFC North, they're the elite team.
2) Detroit Lions~ Yup, I'm drinking the Kool-Aid. If the defense can stay healthy, and we get Calvin in training camp and Jones comes back, I think this team will be decent. I like the offense with Williams, Johnson, and Furrey at receiver, and backfield of Jones, Bell, and Duckett. But will we have an O-Line this year? A secondary? Remains to be seen.
3) Green Bay Packers~ The defense was good last year, but not great. It was a decent NFL defense. I look at Green Bay's offense, and I just don't see it. Favre didn't get younger, Driver can only go down after a career year, and they have no running game whatsoever. The defense will keep this team in games, but they won't score enough points to win.
4) Minnesota Vikings~ Travaris Jackson is your quarterback. Icky. Solid backfield with Chester Taylor and Adrian Peterson and a great O-Line to work with. I'm no NFL coach, but I would just pound the football. Otherwise Jackson will be forced to throw it to guys I've never heard of, and that will inevitably be a bad thing. This team is rebuilding in every sense of the word...and yet the Lions will probably still lose to them at least once this year.
NFC East:
1) Philadelphia Eagles~ I really like the defense a lot this year. The Eagles always seem to have a solid D. They lost Stallworth to New England, but they gained Kevin Curtis, who is essentially the white Donte Stallworth in my opinion. If McNabb and Westbrook can stay healthy (big ifs), this offense should be downright nasty. Nasty offense with a solid defense equals a division title.
2) Dallas Cowboys~ Can Romo step up for a full year? With T.O., Terry Glenn, Jason Witten, Marion Barber III, and Julius Jones, he better! That's a lot of weapons, and Romo should be halfway decent. The defense looks solid as well, but I always wonder about the mental make-up of a team like the Cowboys. One week they can look great (last year beating the Colts), and then they don't show up (losing to the Lions- at home). Good talent, but I don't think they're a great team yet.
3) Washington Redskins~ Portis and Betts will be a great backfield tandem, and Campbell and Cooley established a nice connection last year. Brandon Lloyd has to show up this year though, as Santana Moss isn't the type of receiver you want carrying your team. They got LaRon Landry in the draft, and adding Smoot in free agency should bolster the defense, but that remains to be seen. The Redskins always seem to look good on paper, but always end up being a bust in some way. For that reason, they finish third.
4) New York Giants~ Eli has looked serviceable, but not great. Now he has to step-up and be the leader of this team. He has Shockey and Burress for weapons, but if one of those guys goes down, they're in trouble. He no longer has Tiki to bail him out in the passing game. Jones and Droughns take over the running game, and although both will be decent, it's hard to argue they'll be able to replace Tiki's production. Also, the O-Line is definitely a big question mark. On defense, the loss of Strahan will be huge. You need a solid D-Line to stop the run in this league, and without it the Giants will be hurting. Add the New York media pressure and a lame duck coach in Coughlin and this will be a tough season for the G-Men.
NFC South:
1) New Orleans Saints~ Not a tough pick here. I really question their defense, as I don't think they've upgraded it enough this past off season. It's obvious their offense will carry them again this season. Brees, Bush, McAllister, Colston, Henderson...that's just filthy. Can their offense mask their defensive deficiencies to make it to the Super Bowl?
2) Atlanta Falcons~ They're not going to be that bad folks. Trust me. Joey Harrington is no Michael Vick, but if he can pick up Petrino's system he will be decent. Having one less year experience than Vick, Harrington already has more passing yards and throwing touchdowns than Vick. Yes, Vick does a lot with his legs, but Petrino's system is predicated on throwing, not running. And I will argue that Harrington is a better passer than Vick, so it won't be that bad Falcons fans. In fact, I'm predicting it will be better. With Norwood coming into his own, Horn and Crumpler bringing experience to the receiving corps, and the leadership of Dunn, this will be a decent offense. And with an veteran defense, I expect this team to compete for the playoffs this year.
3) Carolina Panthers~ A year removed from being every one's Super Bowl pick, the Panthers don't have the expectations this year. They had a solid draft, and bringing in Carr to back up Delhomme was a good move. This team still looks a lot like last year's lackluster team though. Okay QB, one receiver, no tight end, and two small backs. The defense gets over hyped every year, and every year they get decimated by injuries and poor performances. This won't be a bounce back year for the Panthers, as I just don't think this team has the right chemistry to win it all. They'll be decent though, and will win a few games against top teams, but will also lose against some of the poorer teams.
4) Tampa Bay Buccaneers~ So many questions. I predict Garcia will be terrible this year. Garcia is good on good teams, bad on bad teams. History shows it. But when he messes up, there will be people behind him. They do have depth, not great depth, but depth nonetheless. Tampa's defense is a work in progress, as they are battling age and a depleted secondary. Teams will light them up. Their schedule is favorable though, so they could end up looking like a decent team, but don't let the record fool you- they're awful.
NFC West~
1) Arizona Cardinals~ This is my surprise team from the NFC that will step-up. They brought in Wisenhunt as their head coach, who proved to be a very successful O-coordinator in Pittsburgh, and Grimm as the O-Line coach, which they desperately need to improve. But the talent is there. Drafting Levi Brown was a great move, and Fitzgerald and Bouldin are absolute monsters at the wide out positions. Leinart has a year under his belt, and Edgerinn James will be better this year behind an improved O-Line. The defense will be a big question as always, but this division is full of defenses that are fairly weak.
2) St. Louis Rams~ Bulger, Holt, Bruce, and Jackson. There's your offense, and it's a damn good one. Jackson came into his own last year, and I think he'll continue wrecking the weak NFC West defenses. The defense is supposed to have improved, but we'll see. I watched the Lions score almost at will against the Rams, so what exactly is improved? Giving up 30 instead of 40? They picked up a good DE in the draft, but we'll see how the secondary holds up.
3) San Francisco 49ers~ Chic pick in the NFC right now. A good draft, solid defensive free agent signings, trading for Darryl Jackson at wide out, and a healthy Vernon Davis on offense makes the 49ers attractive. And yes, on paper, they look good. Before I jump on the bandwagon though, I want to see this team gel. What happens if Frank Gore goes down with an injury? In my opinion, the offense is doomed. Alex Smith isn't ready to carry a team yet, and Jackson has to prove he can stay healthy for more than six games a season. The defense looks good on paper, but so does the Redskins' every single year, and look how much they win. I feel like this is a division where the winner is going to be the one who has the best offense, and I just don't feel like the 49ers are there yet.
4) Seattle Seahawks~ Alexander is getting older and coming off an injury. They lost Hasselbeck's favorite target in Darryl Jackson. They lost their starting tight end in Jerramy Stevens, and replaced him with Marcus Pollard, a Lion reject. It's never good when you're replacing starters with Lion rejects. I watched the Seahawk defense get torched last year, and I watched the running game get stuffed behind an only average offensive line after the loss of Hutchinson. I was amazed how well they played against the Bears in the playoffs, as they showed the heart of a champion. This year though? The rest of the division steps up, while they step down.
Let's give the playoff picture and seeding:
1) Philadelphia Eagles
2) New Orleans Saints
3) Chicago Bears
4) Arizona Cardinals
5) Dallas Cowboys
6) Atlanta Falcons
Wild Card:
Atlanta at Chicago: Nice feel good story for Atlanta after bouncing back from the Vick story, but Chicago at home in January...Da Bears.
Dallas at Arizona: A playoff home game for the division winning Cardinals? You better believe it. With the home crowd at their side, the Cardinals will light up the Boys. Cardinals in a shoot out.
Division:
Arizona at Philadelphia: A great playoff win against Dallas shows the Cardinals will be a threat...next year. With a stingy defense and McNabb airing it out to Brown and Curtis, the Eagles blowout the Cards at home.
Chicago at New Orleans: Last year's conference championship match-up happens a round earlier, and in New Orleans this time. With a weaker defense and a raucous New Orleans' crowd, Grossman and the Bears fall as Bush and McAllister each score touchdowns. Brees hits Bush in the flat for the game winning touchdown in the fourth quarter, and Bush does his trademark flip into the end zone- but this time the Saints win.
Conference Championship:
New Orleans at Philadelphia: These two teams met last year in New Orleans, but this time it's in Philly. Both teams are hungry, but McNabb wants this more than anybody. He proves why he is the leader of the team and an elite NFL quarterback as he torches the Saint defense. Philly holds down the Saint offense just enough to capture the win and the conference. Philadelphia to the Super Bowl.
So there you have it. My NFC picks. The Philadelphia Eagles will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, barring any unforeseen injuries. The Lions? 8-8 this year, which is a very good season for them. Hopes will be high for the next season, but aren't they always? Improvement, but not ten wins. Baby steps for the Lions. I've learned not to expect too much.
~Mikey D
