First World Food

Living in any first world nation allows most of the populace to exist in relative comfort. One of the more basic comforts in our world is food. Now, food is a necessity in life and regretfully many around the world, including in the US, deal with hunger. As sad as that is it is not my focus today as my curiosity has beckoned me to the choices we who have access to any food stuff make. 

In the news there are stories about food almost constantly. From morning news programs with cooking segments to nightly warnings about food and in between are interest pieces about kitsch dining options that seem to enthrall public sentiment. I read recently that we're in the middle of a burger craze. I've always been crazy about burgers but now it's the cool thing to eat. Like the cupcake fetish it appears that we're treating food with the same attitude as music or clothing. Or any other entertainment or personalization avenues for that matter. 

Why though? Why is food becoming this thing we use to identify and aide our attempts at expression. Did people recently find out that burgers were delicious? Is this push back from the flood of people who don't eat red meat for some ungodly reason? And why aren't people eating red meat? Why weren't they eating egg yolks years ago? It can't be health reasons. We all do things that are unhealthy and far worse than eating red meat. Moreover, unless you're growing and making your own food (which I know people who do) you can't complain about red meat. So what are the answers to these questions? Honestly, I think there's only one answer. We live in the first world.

There are vegans who have said that the whole world should stop eating meat and only eat organic food. Scientists have said that half the world would starve if that happened. Now, these aren't exact quotes so don't get mad, but lets run with this premise. Why would people say that we should stop eating meat and nonorganic food? Because they live in the first world. Being a vegan is part of their identity that they chose. Much like the cupcake and burger crazes, much like not eating yolks or red meat, people are making their food choices based off of their identities. I know some people can't eat certain things for health reasons, like red meat doesn't bode we'll for people with gastrointestinal issues, as well as other health problems. But most people let food shape their identity by choice. It's a way of expressing ourselves and embracing our as well as other cultures.

So when I see people lining up at a food truck during lunch or heading to some of the more famous restaurants around Boston, I wonder whether they like it there, want to try it or want to incorporate it into their identity. Maybe a combination or maybe all three or maybe it's just close and they're hungry. 

Identity and How Much of it Do We Own?

Recently, Ellen Page, star of Juno, was asked on Reddit's AMA about working on video games and how the character of Ellie from The Last of Us looks and sounds like her. Ms. Page was understandably upset by this considering she is receiving no monetary compensation for this. However, two things must be acknowledged.

One, movies have become the apex of our society. There is nothing higher on the commercial and critical fronts of entertainment. Therefore every medium is bound to pull things from it. The Long Halloween, the seminal Batman tale, paraphrases lines of dialogue straight from The Godfather. The entire Call of Duty franchise takes things from films, from the look of the characters (Soap and the guy from Tears of the Sun with the mohawk) to the names of sections and certain scenes. The reason being these products use film influences so liberally is because of film being successful. And that inspires writers and artists to try and capture that cinematic experience. People love movies. Therefore taking things from movies in order to fulfill a wanted look makes sense. After all, Ellen Page is not the first, last or thousandth actor to have their likeness copied. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Mike Tyson and Bruce Lee have had their images copied umpteen times and have formed the archetypes of most video games, be they shooting or fighting or what have you. Moreover, the film Aliens practically created the "space marine" character and wrote most of the banter between soldiers, marines or commandoes in shooters.

Second, she didn't do anything. She didn't do anything to deserve money. She didn't do anything at all. In fact, all that happened was a character looked like her. So what if the character looked like her? What if the character was an exact carbon copy of how Ellen Page would act that role? So what? She didn't spend time rehearsing and studying and acting out the character. People will play that game and if they don't know that the character isn't Ellen Page, all it does is boost people's awareness of her. Free publicity as far as I'm concerned. And when she acknowledges or brings up The Last of Us, she is reciprocating what they did for her.

I suppose the question some one might pose to me is, "How would you feel if your likeness was used without your permission?". I would love it. People would be like, "Hey, you look like that guy from that game". Who wouldn't dig that? Maybe the character is popular and they're willing to pay me to act in it. Or maybe a rival company would steal me away. Or maybe I wouldn't give two balls because who really cares at the end of the day? If people have any smarts they know that Ellen Page's likeness was being used and they register that her value aesthetically and as an actress is so great that people steal her image. Or at least that's how I think.

Sports=Entertainment, Entertainment=Sports

Since the douchebag squad known as the Miami Heat have won the NBA Championship, I've been conflicted. In the interest of full disclosure, basketball is my least favorite of the major sports and I detest how the current version of the Miami Heat came together. There's something deeply ingrained in me that says teams should not be millionaire friends coming together to win championships. Moreover, LeBron James is a dope of the highest order. He's not a bad person from a universal perspective. He's not a rapist or murderer. But in a regional, nationalistic sense, he's an unmitigated piece of shit. And some might say I'm jealous of his life. Not really. I'm jealous of the fact that a borderline legal moron was able to use his natural abilities, with of course a modest amount of hard work, to become a millionaire superstar. However, you couldn't pay me enough to live his life. He lacks awareness and the entourage of friends from high school that he keeps are going to sink him one day. But I digress. I'm conflicted over this team because in the simplest way possible sports are entertainment and entertainment is about getting people to watch.

This confliction comes down to the fact that sports are entertainment. When  a guy and a couple friends head out to the park to play softball or a high school team suits up for a football game, that sport is primarily about the fun of the sport. Which is essentially entertainment on a minor level. The players are entertaining themselves. Of course, some might say that a high school player might be trying to get a scholarship or whatever. In the words of the recently departed James Gandolfini's most famous character, "Irregardless". At the end of the day the outcome of the game does not decide lives so it is just entertainment.

Pro sports thrive on ratings and ticket sales. If people aren't watching, then the owners lose money and if the owners lose money they either sell the team or try to bring in cash by getting better players or more marketable ones at least. Leagues work on the same principle, except switch players with teams and sell the team with let the league fold.

In thinking about how this applies to the Miami Heat, we have to see their marketability. A positive is the fact that they have two of the greatest current basketball players on their roster. A negative is the city. Miami sucks for sports because no one really cares. A negative should be a combination of players and city. Asshole players, shithole city. Should be a clear cut no-no. Yet, they drew amazing numbers to their game 7 and I haven't gone a week without seeing some mouthbreather wearing a James jersey. Why? Why does this team have so many supporters and people who want to watch them? It puzzled me until I realized what shows are on TV. Reality shows. Douchebags and assholes and dolts and dopes. All mucking about with people watching them. And I hear from folks who watch these shows that they hate this character and this one is so stupid. My question is, "why do you watch?". I deal with imbeciles every day, why should I watch a fake version of them on TV? Apparently some folks enjoy watching these types of people. And thus, my conflict continues. Is a team full of hated players good because they drive up ratings and money? Good for the sport? Probably not. Good for the fans? Well some people like villains. But then again, if you're really invested in a team then every opponent is a villain. Good for the league? Probably. David Stern must cry with joy every time the Heat win because he knows that all their negative attention is still attention. And attention means money. Even if it means losing fans of the sports because of the Heat and what they represent.

In the end, that seems to be all that matters. Movies fight for box office dollars. TV shows fight for ratings, which means dollars. That seems to be a sport in and of itself. So at the end of the day, entertainment and sports are the same beast, just different douchebags within them.

Whatever Aaron Hernandez Did, He Shouldn't Have Done It

This seems rather obvious. I don't know whether or not he killed anyone or did anything else illegal. However, I do know that when the cops come to your door and then you smash your security system and phone, you did something you weren't supposed to do. And even though people might say "Of course he shouldn't have done whatever it was that he did for reasons X,Y and Z", the question is really why. What is it about people that brings them to risking the life that they built for themselves?

Let's think about this, every athlete is physically gifted far beyond the normal person. You have to work hard of course, but you also need to be born with certain capacities that give you that extra edge in the world of professional sports. If you're born with such capacities and skills, you need to protect and bolster them by taking care of yourself physically, but also mentally and emotionally. So what does that mean? It means, cut the shit. If you get angry, talk to someone. If you hang out with dopes who do dumb things, get new friends. If you can't control your drinking or drugs, pay a guy to follow you around and grab the tequila out of your hand and smack the blow straw out of your hand. Natural gifts are rare so letting your bullshit get in the way of that is a slap in the face of those without such physical traits.

Moreover, if you are a professional athlete, you are a monetary investment. I don't believe that every athlete has to live squeaky clean and do everything like a choir boy. I actually don't care what people do outside of the game. Wanna smoke, drink, have sex with random women or hookers, party like a fool? Go right ahead. Show up on Sunday ready to go though. Teams invest so much into players that without them being able to play or being viable marketing pieces, they lose lots of cash. Which makes other teams unwilling to pay for them.

Vice is fine in my book. Sex, drugs and booze are all kosher provided you don't hurt anyone in pursuit of them or while engaging in them. But once you break out and do something with the express intent of injuring a person, you suck and deserve a hearty and harsh penalty.

Despite all of these things. Despite how simple it seems for an average person just to stay out of trouble, I don't think these guys who have gotten in trouble can help it. What this entire rambling mess boils down to is that people cannot control who they are sometimes. I'm not saying either way what Hernandez should have done or if he did anything at all, but there is a long line of athletes, actors, politicians and electricians who have done things they shouldn't do and then we all ask why. And the why is this, it's who they are. Most things about you have been decided before you were born. There are physically gifted people born everyday. That physical gift may translate to football if you're born in America, hockey if in Canada, Soccer if in England. Or it may translate into a job, physical trainer, actor. You have to have the capacity from birth to look like Brock Lesnar. On the same side, people who have the capacity for murder or rape are born everyday. You're born in a poverty torn country somewhere, you become a child soldier. You're born into a gang-laden neighborhood, you become a gangster. Sometimes you're born with the capacity to be an athlete and a killer. An actor and a rapist. We can't be surprised or shocked when anything happens because anyone you know could be born with the capacity to do something horrible. With the skills to catch a ball sometimes comes the skill to pull a trigger. And when those two abilities are in the same person, it's quite tragic when they act on the less desirable of those two traits.

So in short, why do athletes risk everything doing dumb shit? Because it's who they are as a person.

What We Believe in Music

It struck me today how we choose our music. The popularity of "Louie, Louie" inspired the government to research the lyrics to make sure there was nothing nefarious involved. It was a wildly popular song and most people had no earthly idea what they were saying. What we listen to and why has a lot to do with what we're looking for. Songs and artists seem to latch themselves onto our consciousness when we need them. I've had bands or songs that I thought nothing of until hearing them at a certain time or in a certain way.

Most recently, I saw Ghost B.C. for the first time. Their entire schtick is predicated on this satanic angle. Songs about devil worship, their concert attire being based on the pope. Seeing them at "Rock on the Range" in Columbus, Ohio really made them stand out. For some unexplained reason I got it. The music sounded better after the live performance. Now, it really has nothing to do with their songs' contents. I don't worship satan, I just really dig the music. I sing along with the songs too. Several times at work the past week I was walking through the halls, humming "Secular Haze". I'll sing along to it in the car the way I would sing along to something like "Mysterious Ways" a very pro-Christianity song. And to be honest I had no idea what "Mysterious Ways" was about until I was about 17. And that was because I had a lackluster epiphany in my 89 Mercury Cougar (Bostonian Edition mind you), listening to "Achtung, Baby". I know the words to both songs and yet they both connect to me on a level that transcends the message. And I think I know why.

For me, I like the aesthetics of a song. As someone who reads a lot and just really likes things that sound cool, I appreciate imagery and phrases that resonate with me. And I think a lot of people would agree with that. Whether it be the sounds, be they familiar or new, the words, be they challenging or comforting or even just how the song is performed connects to something deep within our brains. I would submit that a song like Frank Turner (& The Sleeping Souls)'s "Glory Hallelujah" could be presented to a Christian of strong faith and they would be hard pressed to keep the hymnal like tune out of their heads. For the uninformed the chorus of "Glory Hallelujah" was "There never was no God". Even though someone might object to the message of the song, there has to be something that ties itself to their brain.

Maybe that's why people flipped out about 2 Live Crew's "Me So Horny". They couldn't get it out of their heads and the content bothered them to the point that they had to do something about it. Same with Judas Priest. Would anyone dare tell me that they don't know at least one line of "Me So Horny" or "You Got Another Thing Coming"? No. They're catchy as hell and they transcend genre. So songs about sex and satan really aren't about those things, but about what people connect to. In a sense, lyrics can be wholly irrelevant to music. Much like with "Louie, Louie".

"Darling Nikki" is a sex fiend, "Roxanne" is a hooker and "Delia" is  murdered to death. Does that make me want to murder a woman? No. Find a hooker? No. Find a sex fiend? Kinda. But that has nothing to do with those songs. And the fact that I can sing along with Prince, Sting and Johnny doesn't mean I actually care about what the lyrics are saying. Does that render lyrics worthless? Of course not. Lyrics are what we make them. One of my favorite songs is "Love You Till The End" by the Pogues. The line "I just want to be there when the morning light explodes/on your face it radiates/I can't escape, I love you will the end" is such a charming and warm phrase that fills me with love when I feel that way about someone and hope/despair (depending what kind of day it has been) when I'm not. I get to pick and choose the meaning of lyrics to the songs I like. And that's why I love song lyrics.

Random Nonsense:
-I worked with a guy named Scottie once who told me one of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie" was "I felt my bone right in her hair" and he claimed that meant the singer rubbed his erection on his beloved's scalp.
-People who say the fact that Bon Scott sang "Highway to Hell" was why he choked to death on his vomit should be aware that Angus and Malcolm Young helped write the song and they're alive and well. Meanwhile, there's a shit ton of gospel singers who've kicked the bucket far too soon, just like Mr. Scott.
-I will listen to the "Fairytale of New York" and occasionally break into singing throughout the year, even though it is a (the best) Christmas song. Two reasons. Christmas rules and it's the best song for reminiscing about lost loves.
-My unit sang "Wake Me Up When September Ends" on the bus from the barracks the day we deployed. I'm not a Green Day fan, but that song still gives me goosebumps. And I really wish it didn't.

Bruins-Blackhawks Pre-Game Thoughts

As much as I'd like to break things down and explore the ins and outs and every subtle nuance of this series, it is essentially pointless. There has been no steadfast principle that has guided the outcome of the first two games other than in hockey shit happens. Deflections and bad/lucky/fortunate bounces are the lifeblood of the sport. So as opposed to committing myself to the maddening task of the game itself, I'm thinking deeply about the half-assed circus setup around the Stanley Cup Finals.

I was welcomed to ESPN's coverage of the Stanley Cup Finals this morning. I would have laughed had I not been brewing coffee. The coverage lasted the princely sum of five or so minutes (probably less) and Barry Melrose made the most of his scant airtime by rehashing what everyone who follows hockey knows. Some might say this is essential because not all viewers know about the ins and the outs of the series. There's two issues with this. One, people either follow hockey and know what's going on, just want to know who won and the people who'll never care. If you follow hockey you shouldn't be watching ESPN for hockey coverage. They abandon that sport for 99% of the year to cover such valid topics as one of their anchors throwing out the first pitch at a Rays game, which is roughly the equivalent of making employee of the month at a Tampa Burger King. If you only care who won, it's a four second search, a glance at a newspaper or just overhearing people on the train. You don't need the frivolous few moments to find that out. And if you don't care you don't care. People who don't care put on ESPN to be spoon fed LeBron James and Tim Tebow because their Q rating is sky high.

Aside from ESPN and their continually parallel with MTV (MTV is to music what ESPN is to sports), NBC's coverage from a technical standpoint has been fine. Their awful and biased commentary makes me head hurt. Before Game 2 they profiled Andrew Shaw, an agitator the likes of Brad Marchand with practically a fraction of the skill. NBC was trying to set him up as a focal point of the game. Granted, he scored the overtime game winner by deflecting the puck. I'm not knocking him. It was a smart, hockey play. But he in no way deserves that kind of attention. The more he plays the more we'll see how frustrating he is and how bad that style of play is for the image of hockey. 

This isn't the first time a player comparable to Marchand attracted such forced attention from NBC. During the Bruins series with the Flyers in 2011, James Van Riemsdyk became the focal point of NBC's coverage. Marchand and JVR (as he was known, I always preferred RVD honestly) had pretty much the same stats. However, it seemed like he was the second coming of Mike Bossy on broadcasts. The announcers would cackle with excitement as JVR hit the ice. The Flyers were promptly swept and JVR was shipped to Toronto.

Why do the Bruins incur such vitriol from NBC? Eddie Olyczek and Pierre McGuire can barely contain their hatred. Milbury can barely do it, but everybody gets his venom. Despite how awful of a GM he was. Jeremy Roenick gives the Bruins credit and he was the Boston native who famously said he would never play for the Bruins. So why do the two most (regrettably) heard from voices show the team so little respect? Is it because NBC wants a team of stars to shine? Could it be that the team first dynamic of the Bruins doesn't allow for individuals to step up and take the reigns and therefore minimalists their marketability? Could it be the hatred of Jeremy Jacobs? Who knows? I just know half the game I'm nervous and the other half I'm angered by the broadcast.

Initial Thoughts on "Man of Steel"

In thinking about "Man of Steel" and the torrent of theories and interpretations that will surely follow in the coming days, weeks and months, I believe an initial response is the most valid and pure. So here it goes.

"Man of Steel" in essence is about accepting death. Not only accepting, but understanding. I know that the Christ comparisons have already begun for this film and have followed the character of Superman for a long time. However, this transcends the concept of dying for sins and leading through example as a moral arbiter. The film is all about breaking through the chains of life and using that freedom to do something special. I would say acceptance leads to accomplishments. Several examples follow this.

Firstly, Jor-El's death. Jor-El puts himself at considerable risk to save his son and give him a chance at life. After placing his son in a spaceship programed fir Earth, he fights off and kills several guards and then bests General Zod. After the ship escapes Zod mortally wounds Jor-El. Now, with his son safely gone and off to fulfill his father's hope, Jor-El accepts death. Maybe not necessarily from Zod, but he had resigned himself to death when he discovered that Krypton was doomed. Jor-El has a singular purpose that he follows in the face of death. Jor-El simply looks to his son knowing he is safe as death consumes him.

Secondly, the death of Jonathan Kent. As opposed to traditional Superman lore where he dies of a heart attack (I think the average 50 year old is not dropping dead from those as often as in the golden age of comics) he dies in a tornado after saving the family dog. He refuses to let his son use his extraordinary abilities to save him, in order to protect him from the world. For in his eyes if the world found out about him too early, they might reject him. Jonathan realizes the end is near and looks to his son with a calmness about him before the tornado takes him.

Thirdly, the death of Colonel Hardy. Colonel Hardy may become slightly overlooked in retrospect in spite of his character's worth. Colonel Hardy is hesitant about Superman until he is saved by him. He comes to represent the acceptance of Superman by humans. However, before this when he is attacked he expends all of his ammunition and turns to his knife against a super-powered alien. Having seen what the creature was capable of, he showed no fear in engaging it in combat. Right before Superman saves Colonel Hardy he lunges in with his knife, knowing full well he will surely perish. Later on he crashes the C-10 carrying Superman's ship with the phantom drive that sends the army of Zod back to the phantom zone. When confronted again by the alien commander he crashes the plane quoting her from earlier "a noble death is its own reward" (I believe this is the quote, I was pretty floored by the awesome so I may have missed exactly what was said).

Now, looking at how these three men died, a man of science, a man of agriculture and a man of the military, we see a serenity about them that shows their acceptance of death. And in doing so they all save Superman, and by that virtue Earth. I know Superman saved Hardy twice before this, but it does not change the deed. They are able to do this because they do not fear death, nor do they think of themselves. They think of their actions and the good it will do. By being unafraid of death they transcend.

The opposite of this is Zod. Zod is so fearful of death that he commits acts of heinous injustice. He kills untold numbers of people in Metropolis (the movie is pretty vague on how many civilians actually died). Zod is scared of the death of his people, the Kryptonians, which is the death of him. He says that he was raised to defend Krypton and her people and when he cannot do that he loses control. Zod dies struggling against Superman. In that scene Zod is the old world that is afraid of letting go and accepting death and Superman is the new world that understand the necessity of death as a means of moving on. The wrinkle to this argument is that Zod is trying to change Earth into a new Krypton by killing all of Earth's inhabitants. This shows that death is not good or evil, but instead a tool that can be used by those who dare to wield it. Superman's killing of Zod to protect a family exemplifies this notion.

In the end, "Man of Steel" is like a child's first goldfish. Its death teaches the child about the finites confines of life. "Man of Steel" is a goldfish for grownups. It shows that you do not have to be a superman to be more than you are, to commit great deeds of generosity, kindness and love. Because without Jor-El, Jonathan Kent and Colonel Hardy standing bold in the clutches of death, Superman would have never had the chance to save Earth.

Random Gripes:
I cannot write about Superman without addressing the issues I have with the character. These are random thoughts with little to no structure.
-He's an alien who does not call himself human. So how is he a man? How is he a Superman then?
-Superman makes for a more compelling character outside of the confines of his comic books (Action Comics and Superman). See "Red Son" or "Batman: Noel" for examples. He works best as a symbol and an archetype. This could be the result of Superman being the gold standard of superheroes.
-Why doesn't he play football? He could makes millions, not have to worry about a job and would have 6 days off to save as many people as he wants. He could even save people during halftime.