The intent of a layoff beard is that it ceases to exist once full time employment is achieved. (Just like this blog!)
But here’s something I never quite anticipated. What if I landed a part-time job? After some profound self-deliberation, it’s been concluded that a trimming is in order. Never mind that it would’ve probably been semi-shorn because the damn thing needed it. It gets hot under all this cheek hair, y’see.
Without getting too much into it, I now have part time employment starting on the horizon with a semi-prominent website. The sweet part is I’ll get to work from home, and hopefully in the coming weeks you’ll hear all about it. I’d tell you everything if they already announced something, but essentially I just want to drop a legitimate excuse on why The Layoff Beard, much like the actual layoff beard, will not be as heavy as it normally is. It’s because more meaningful work will be done. From home. (Just had to mention that again.)
I hear the following sentiments all the time: People are getting dumber. We’re becoming more depraved. The Internet is ruining journalism. Before you know it, Idiocracy will no longer be a work of fiction.
Maybe it’s because of our dependence on technology and how much time we escape into the digital cloth. It’s true, all those glowing rectangles are quite amazing but ever-present in our lives. Could we, as a society, be losing the important quality of human contact because of our iPhones, tweets, Facebooks quizzes, and DVR? Do GPS systems help us lose our sense of direction and know where we’re really going?
Well, maybe. I used to be able to remember important phone numbers before I had a cell phone that could store them. Actually, wait, what’s a cell phone for anymore? Nowadays I can just tweet to my friends. I think I’ve forgotten how to dial altogether.
Dependence on technology is one thing. Yes, we’re probably a little too immersed in bits and bytes. But does that translate to intelligence? I’m no fan of “c u l8r” speak, and any grown man over 30 who writes e-mails like that should probably get a few slaps across the face with an unabridged dictionary. But I have trouble seeing how websites and TV shows that cater to the lowest common denominator are dumbing us down.
I see the logic, though. If planned premise television was thrown out the window, and shows about fat single girls trying to find boyfriends were replaced by something with something slightly more redeeming in value, we’d be a smarter society. But the thing is, there are already lots of shows on Discovery and The Science Channel and A&E pertaining to very interesting, highly sophisticated topics. When it comes to politics, NPR and BBC aren’t going away any time soon.
Text messaging and the Internet destroyed societal intelligence. Sure. They said the same thing about the television, rock music, radio, and perhaps the moving picture. Hell, I’m sure they had that same logic about the light bulb, the printing press, heliocentrism, and the wheel. (”You mean to say you need to CARVE a smooth object to get across that meadow because you ain’t smart enough to use your own feet? What have we become?”)
It’s pretty safe to assume that all those 2,000 comments at the end of any banal YouTube video were penned by toothless troglodytes who have walls covered in feces and keep running into the door because they forgot about the doorknob … which is also covered in feces. But 50, 200, 500 years ago, the common man never really wrote in front of the whole world. I suspect if a medieval kingdom’s peasants all wrote a letter to the lord expressing their views on the new tithing system, someone somewhere is going to call the lord a fag, and another person would compare the new tithing system to something Hitler would have done. And come to think of it, most of those peasants probably did have walls covered in feces.
I have to ask, when people say we’re getting dumber: what’s your reference point? When was the smartest year in the history of the world? Was it before or after the discovery of nanotechnology? If society’s getting dumb, are you referring to the aptitude of the 99th percentile, or the average ordinary citizen?
The discovery of idiocy kind of precedes everything else. There was always that caveman who thought it was a smart idea to yank on the mountain lion’s tail (hey, he was curious, plus he had good reason to think that’s how you start a fire), and the rest of the onlookers learned from it. (”Okay, no pulling on mountain lion’s tails. Your face will become mountain lion hors d’oeurves.”) Of course, there was that one cynical caveman, who worked in IT, that remained convinced mankind wouldn’t survive because people got eaten by mountain lions.
Let’s not focus on the stupidity and assume we’re doomed. Focusing on stupidity, if nothing else, makes us feel better about our own goof-ups, such as the time I … such as the time someone told the airport security guard he didn’t have a gun when the guard actually asked him if he had any gum. Nah, we’ll be okay. And if not, we just wait a few billion years, and the next generation of intelligent life will realize that their ancestors invented flavored dental floss.
So exactly how effective is saturation of commercials? I guess getting songs stuck in the head of the TV-watching masses is a plus, if and only if they know what the hell the song is peddling. For a while I thought the “Lollipop” song was dedicated to selling scads upon scads of Verizon phones, namely because phones are all sorts of goofy colors these days. [Conceals orange BlackBerry to prove a point]
But no. Upon looking for the video, it’s actually a Dell commercial, because they’re selling those little mini laptops (kneetops?), and they needed to remake an old song that nobody exactly liked in the first place. Ergo, it’s about effective as a knapsack full of coconuts to the solar plexus.
Jolly! I now hate the entire concept of miniature laptops.
Seriously, this picture is like porn to me. Without question, the 2006 ALCS walk off home run by Magglio Ordoñez is the most pristine sports memory I’ve ever had. At least until this next postseason.
This is my weakness, world. There are so many ways you could enslave me, render me penniless, and get me to do unspeakable acts that would make your children tremble for years. That was a fantastic home run. And I had no idea I’d be thinking about it when I went to Bed Bath & Beyond today.
Now, men only go to Bed Bath & Beyond with two people: your mother or your girlfriend/wife. If they walk into the store on their own free will, it is always an honest mistake, or that’s where the nearest bathroom is.
Sure enough, I was there with the girlfriend this afternoon, as she needed some kind of olive squeezer, or olive oil container, or something to do with freaking olives. I was just kind of mindlessly wandering through the aisles, waiting for it to be over. Every once in a while, they put a display of sportsy things like U. of M towels or cornhole sets, which I have to say is rather nice of BB&B to throw a bone to the men, so they have something to look at.
We kept walking. Suddenly a mound of Tigers crap showed up. There it was, hanging on the pole:
Yes, what you happen to see before you is a battery-powered bottle opener that, when used, plays a radio recording of Magglio Ordoñez’s 3-run* walk-off home run in Game 4 of the 2006 ALCS against the Oakland A’s off Huston Street to win 6-3.
* – For the longest time, I re-remembered this home run as a grand slam. I think it’s because I confuse the number of baserunners with Jason Grilli’s almost disastrous eighth inning where he walked three straight batters.
Do I even need a bottle opener? Probably not. Any bottles I buy contain non-alcoholic drinks, and they’re always twistoff. By all rational accounts, this was a frivolous purchase. But rational thinking can go to hell. This was — and I hope I’m not using hyperbole here — the best purchase I, or perhaps anyone in the world, has ever made. (A claim previously held by William H. Seward.)
So, if you need anything opened, I will gladly drive 30 minutes out of my way to provide this service for you, for the low introductory price of 75 cents.
Okay, ‘nother feature. I just talk and talk about old video games. No gimmicks. Okay … a few gimmicks.
Long before Create-A-Team, the Hit Stick, the juke button, and even QB Eagles, there was this crappy little game called 10 Yard Fight, released in 1985. This game is old enough to be a washed up NFL running back. And my God, the nuances of the game are so hilarious, it’s absolutely paramount it be played every few months.
There are a couple of different versions. One of them is an arcade-style game where you’re the all-time offense and just see how many points you can score. Interceptions are negative points. But the one I enjoy better involves playing defense as well.
See that? It’s the “Flying O,” known in the game as the kickoff return formation. Note how the guys behind the returner are protecting the return man from any possible pincer attacks, a classic guerrilla warfare tactic.
Ah, 9-on-9 football. Just like our forefathers planned. And I think that’s, what, Wing-T formation? Three QB stance? If you want your motion man to reach the left side, no problem. Just wait 20 seconds! All three men in the back are adept throwers … to the one wide receiver, who runs the Decapitated Chicken route. Clearly this 8-bit creation was an inspiration to Mike Williams.
Actually, passing is pretty much a frowned upon strategy. All quarterbacks decide to throw the ball two feet in the air, meaning if the ball so much as touches a defender, it’s intercepted. Option run!
I know where Tecmo Bowl got its necessity of the ball carrier to just keep shimmying left and right to shake defenders. (Just like in real football!) I’ve never gone more than 30 yards on a breakaway, unfortunately. And how in the hell do all of my teammates fail to follow the rest of the action?
Special teams were probably designed by a programmer whose idea of American football involved tons and tons of guesswork. Punt formations are the same as passing plays. There is no punt returner. But at least the field goals are fun! Just point to the goalposts and it’ll go through.
Hey, look, a wiener. You know, looking at the size of it, it kind of looks like a … oh, hi, mom.
(Warning, if you haven’t figured out by now: this is going to be a very sophomoric, suggestive post. I’m okay with that.)
More to the point, “wiener” is almost used less to refer to the edible frankfurter than it is a penis. I don’t know how we got to that point … well, actually, I know exactly how we got there. The shape of the food is almost exactly like shape of the appendage. It even has skin. But further down the line, everything became a phallic reference. If I have to give examples, I will: rod, stick, tool, banana, rocket, baby arm, and many others. Although I can’t explain how a male chicken became associated with that junk. (Ha. Junk.)
I was curious what the objects were that could have been called phallic, but aren’t. That way I can round them all up and ensure that these are not bitten by their innuendo-breathing brethren and themselves become penis slang.
Baguette. Perhaps that it’s French, and some macho guy somewhere didn’t want their creations to have that much credit? Maybe bread has an exemption because the “bun” associated with the hot dog represents something else.
Maybe bread alone does not a gutter mind make. As Quizno’s has shown, you need an oven with entry points and a name like “Torpedo” or “Bullet” to drive the dick point home. I’m awaiting their $5 Rocket sub.
Remote control. Could the buttons disqualify it? Or perhaps it’s such an advanced piece of equipment that turning it into slang gives the body part, which doesn’t emit radio waves, more credit than it deserves.
Yarn. Probably the thickness and rigidity. But the ball jokes, coupled with the fact with what the target demographic does with it, leads me to believe that’s the only thing holding it back.
Millipede. It could definitely be the feet. Not everyone is into that.
Stretch limo. The whole point of buying an impressive car, I’ve heard, is to, y’know, compensate. I don’t think a guy in his 40s who thinks his life is over will buy a stretch limo to try and feel younger, but maybe that’s because they’re rather inaccessible and hard to navigate. A stretch Hummer, on the other hand…
Cylindrical prism. Here’s one that completely baffles me. This is absolutely a phrase that rolls right off the tongue and can fit into everyday conversation. I guess I’m lucky that such an intellectual phrase hasn’t been sullied by dirty minds. Heh. “Fit into.”
(Warning: Finishing this post is an automatic two hole punches on your Baseball Geek Card.)
Math is fun. (Damental.) And sports are fun too. Like peanut butter into one’s chocolate, or however the story goes, baseball statistics are like a mosquito bite. Sometimes scratching them is pointless, but sometimes it’s a sign to get the hell out of the forest before you catch malaria.
For instance, last night I noticed that Mike Lowell hit two home runs against the Tigers, and he didn’t even start the game. What’s more, he entered the game as a replacement for the helmet-throwin’ Zimmer-impersonatin’ Kevin Youkilis after he got plunked. That means he was a pinch runner. And only two other guys in history — the last being 30 years ago, and neither players you’ve probably heard of — hit two home runs coming into the game as a pinch runner. Thanks, B-R PI!
Clearly, that’s not a useful factoid. But the Moneyball generation of number-crunching general managers do understand the usefulness of them. New stats get invented all the time. (And soon, a ton will be invented.)
But here’s one I’d like to see. It’d be a more detailed ERA. Earned run average can be deceptive, as can WHIP, because hits aren’t always the pitcher’s fault. Likewise, when a pitcher gives up eight runs in four innings, that’s a bad start. But is it worse to do that against the Rangers or, say, the Padres? Is it better for a pitcher to allow a home run to Albert Pujols or, um, Scott Podsednik?
As I type this, I probably realize that someone out there has already come up with adjusted ERA and WHIP numbers that account for better/worse players and teams. Perhaps not, but I just thought of this on my couch, so I can’t be the first. But consider this a suggestion to those out there with access to databases of baseball numbers and the ability to weave baskets of geeky bliss. Maybe it’ll be useful for GMs (they could determine big game pitchers, guys who get the outs they should), or maybe it’ll just be another crazy mosquito that guys like us can scratch when determining Cy Young candidates.
And to think I was done here. Oh, it was lookin’ pretty much wrapped up in a neat little bow with the previous day’s events, but sure enough SwanGate™, unlike its key players, simply will not die.
The swans who were initially thought shot by rednecks, or maybe eaten by coyotes, were in fact … hit by a car. Residents said the swans appeared to be shot, which means someone out there invented a firearm that shoots Volvos. I’d be scared if I were you.
The comments were moderated with a heavy hand, with a simple one of mine taken out:
And I thought it was swan flu.
Later a cryptic moderation message was planted afterward, saying that “we have removed three comments from this post that were either off-topic or did not further the conversation.” They then linked back to their community guidelines, which I have already read before enough times that I could probably recite it like I can the Preamble. (And without help from Schoolhouse Rock!)
In all my years of Internet tomfoolery, I don’t think I have ever had to do this before, but I’m actually going to diagram, outline, and explain my comment.
And I thought it was… — This sounds harmless enough. It is referring to a thought belonging me, one Matt Sussman, so perhaps they objected to that, but for doling out the benefit of the doubt, we’ll say it ain’t.
…swan flu — A play on words. I know! Hi, my name’s Matt. Nice to meet you.
The reference is to, of course, swine flu, an overblown disease that many people thought they had contracted when the media first started saturating their inches, minutes, and pixels with it. Swine flu was an unimportant story in the grand scheme of the news cycle. Wait a minute. Overblown news story? That sounds familiar.
So there’s the removed comment and its (hopefully) obvious meaning. In all fairness, it was one of my more favorite comments this year. The question then is, did it violate their commenting guidelines?
The best comments and posts are those that add more information to the story, express a different viewpoint or help create intelligent debate.
It didn’t add any information, but it did express a viewpoint that I was the first to mention on their website. Of course, you wouldn’t know, because that viewpoint was removed.
We welcome constructive debate on our site, but we won’t tolerate jerks.
We’ve already been over this. I am a jerk. But a useful, functional jerk.
Don’t be that guy – avoid comments or posts that are off topic, offensive, contain personal attacks or that don’t further the conversation.
Off topic? Nope. Patently on.
Offensive? Perhaps to some with extremely thin skin. It’s a very subjective word. People could take offense to viewpoints they simply don’t agree with.
Contains personal attacks? Nope, except to myself, for saying that I would truly believe it was “swan flu” that killed them. Perhaps they were protecting me … from me.
Didn’t further the conversation? This is another puzzling criterion. It assumes every comment furthers the conversation in some fashion. Perhaps some comments are made by people who just want to say their part and be done with it. It doesn’t further the discussion, but it doesn’t curb it either. Although, in the end, since my comment was discussing the overblown coverage, it was a method to discuss the unreasonable amount of coverage on this story.
My first thought to all this was, are my comments too subtle for them? Are they just gonna up and remove the comment because they don’t understand it, then point to the discussion guidelines? I realize they’re not even a month into putting this policy into practice, but if too much book theory goes into comment moderation, the discussion’s potential will be crippled and thought will be discouraged. Just like a real newspaper!
(Okay, maybe we’re done NOW. Probably not. Wait for the story about the swan love triangle.)
In the spirit of writing too much on an insignificant topic, it’s time to update you on what’s been going on regarding the Swan Comment Tet Offensive.
Oddly enough, this morning an opinion post was made on AnnArbor.com by guest blogger Jordan Miller with the dangerous title “They’re Just Swans.” This rules out my theory about swans running the web site (for now), so this morning I put another theory to use when I mentioned over there how I had made similar points and sentiments yesterday on the website which were deleted. My theory turned out to be true, as that comment was deleted. Minutes later, I wrote “I agree with this post.” That comment? It’s in the boneyard somewhere.
Hours later I commented on a sports article, then on the swan article. Both are still standing today.
As an interesting development, AnnArbor.com staff are explaining why they are deleting certain topics. From the swan post:
Jacksmom, I unpublished your most recent comment because it didn’t contribute anything to the discussion beyond what you previously stated. Also, I don’t think Jordan was trying to make a declaration about all charitable donations, particularly since the first word in the title of her entry is “opinion.”
I wonder if this is a new policy or just one that isn’t consistently enforced. I could ask them directly, but that doesn’t allow me to WILDLY SPECULATE!
(Sidebar: I have never understood the “opinion” qualifier. You hear it all the time. “This is an ‘opinion’ article, therefore…” therefore what? The words have different meanings? If the phrase “pancakes are delicious” was in an article that was designated OPINION, does it change the context at all if the label was not there? Would any logical being have reacted differently to Miller’s words?)
So for the issue regarding comment deletion, I’ll consider the case closed with a dog-ear, in case it happens again. So far it appears questioning lopsided coverage of a story is out of bounds for AnnArbor.com, although I don’t recall seeing that as grounds for deletion in their discussion policy. Unless, of course, someone wants to pony up some reward money to find out what happened to the comment. Perhaps it was eaten by wolves.
I’ve been keeping an eye on the suicide and rebirth of the Ann Arbor News with great interest. They may be the first large city in the country to destroy their only daily and switch to a mostly digital format. From what I saw, the website’s layout was crisp, and the ability for anyone to submit citizen-style journalism appears seamless and innovative.
And it didn’t take long for AnnArbor.com to latch onto their first sap story, a couple of dead trumpeter swans in Lodi Township. So far, there have been five stories on these swans. SWANS. Nobody’s quite sure if they were killed by humans or other animals. Fowl or mammal, you can bet that Sam Waterson is gonna prosecute the son of a bitch(es) to the full extent of the law.
In a story about a $5,000 reward leading to information that could solve SwanGate™, I had enough, and posted the following comment:
I share it as a screenshot for obvious reasons.
As of now, the other comments responding to me are still public, which sure makes for a puzzling conversation. I envision they’re beckoning to this “Mr. Sussman,” who has yet to see this article, telepathically begging me to join the debate. It happens quite often. (At, um, Thanksgiving.)
There was another comment I made, wherein I clarified that, while the murder of swans is sick, so are many other misdemeanors that include theft, threats of other human beings, and drive-by pieings. I openly wondered where their coverage was.
Someone last night (this is a guess) was the victim of a burglary. This will perhaps result in a brief on their website that will be, oh, this long. That burglary victim has lost peace of mind. But there are no vigils, reward moneys, and there will certainly not be five stories about it. Unless, of course, they find some adorable squirrels which were choked to death near his porch.
And I think keeping a keen eye on comments is a great idea. Many discussions on newspapers go unmoderated and become fetid privies teeming with monkey porn and racist statements linking a city commissioner to Hitler, and then tying him to Kevin Bacon.
AnnArbor.com aims to provide a lively community forum where readers can talk to us and talk to each other – in a neighborly way, of course. The best comments and posts are those that add more information to the story, express a different viewpoint or help create intelligent debate. We welcome constructive debate on our site but we won’t tolerate jerks. Don’t be that guy – avoid comments or posts that are off-topic, offensive, contain personal attacks or those that don’t further the conversation. We encourage everyone who registers on our site to use their real name, or at least a consistent screen name. We reserve the right to pre-moderate comments and delete or edit comments.
Being sensible and furthering the discourse is a noble concept, but c’mon, a “no jerks” ensures nobody but cat ladies and 13-year-olds undergoing school projects will comment on the site. Sometimes a little sass is needed. And if sass does not exist, there will be edge, zip and perhaps spunk. (But only in rare instances.)
Honestly, if they’re going to baleete every whisper that provides feedback to their lopsided coverage of a story … then I guess this is the new face of journalism! See, that’s refreshing. If newspapers began looking like trendy, interesting websites, how would we discern mainstream reporting vs. basement typing? Fact-checking? The inverted pyramid? Hah! Bloggers know about those too, and they maximize their usefulness in order to facilitate the exploitation of Erin Andrews.
So that may be what happened. Of course, I could be wrong. So it would be irresponsible to assume that AnnArbor.com is silencing my criticism of SwanGate™ because it was too saucy, because I have no proof. So let’s start brainstorming:
Alternate Theory #1: Everyone who works for AnnArbor.com was murdered by swans and the swans are wearing their skins. Any questioning of SwanGate™ will result in swift obliteration of defiance.
Evidence Supporting Alternate Theory #1: Swans have always been notorious for being the first animals to support Web 2.0. Ostriches in northern Michigan were reported to cancel their subscriptions to the Traverse City Record-Eagle all during the same calendar month. Then there’s this:
Alternate Theory #2: The comment moderator accidentally hit “delete this comment” button instead of “offer this man a job.” In a lapse of UI programming, they put them right next to each other.
Evidence Supporting Alternate Theory #2: I still don’t have a job yet. And I used the phrase “UI programming,” which is intelligent enough to persuade conspiracy theorists.
The intent of a layoff beard is that it ceases to exist once full time employment is achieved. (Just like this blog!) 
