In The Big Inning...

So, I was chatting with my friend Dan about baseball, and he mentioned that he thought it was impressive how much of the United States' connection to the aerospace industry was reflected in our professional sports team names. I'm sure he's not at all biased by the fact that he works at Boeing, but I digress. At any rate, he pointed out the Houston Astros, the Houston Rockets, the Seattle Supersonics, and the New York Jets. (Yeah, I thought the last one was a stretch too, but you can't blame a guy for trying.) At any rate, I decided to do some investigation myself. Here's what my research turned up. (It goes roughly from most entertaining to least.) Let me know if there's something clever I missed.

The Illusionist Industry:
Orlando Magic
Washington Wizards

The Bible-thumping Industry:
New Orleans Saints
San Diego Padres
Anaheim Angels

The Plundering Industry (this might be my favorite):
Pittsburgh Pirates
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Minnesota Vikings
Oakland Raiders
Pittsburgh Stealers (ok, it's "Steelers", I know.)

The Interior Decoration Industry:
Cincinnati Reds
Cleveland Browns
St. Louis Blues
Green Bay Packers (Justin contributed this one. Un-PC, but too funny to omit.)

The Poker Industry:
Kansas City Royals
Sacramento Kings
Los Angeles Kings
Oakland A's (ha!)

The Meteorology Industry:
Tampa Bay Lightning
San Diego Chargers
Carolina Hurricanes
Phoenix Suns
Miami Heat
Colorado Avalanche

The Clothing Industry:
New York Knickerbockers
Boston Red Sox
Chicago White Sox

The Circus-performers industry:
Minnesota Twins
San Francisco Giants
Tennessee Titans

The Cattle-related Industry:
Chicago Bulls
Indianapolis Colts
Dallas Cowboys
San Antonio Spurs
Denver Broncos

The Zookeeping Industry:
Bears, Cubs, Bruins, Tigers, Panthers, Rams, Bengals, Diamondbacks,
Penguins, Timberwolves, blah, blah, blah.

The Native American Industry (otherwise known as casinos):
Washington Redskins
Atlanta Braves
Cleveland Indians
Kansas City Chiefs
Chicago Blackhawks

The Birdwatching Industry:
Baltimore Orioles
Toronto Blue Jays
St. Louis Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Arizona Cardinals
Baltimore Ravens
Atlanta Hawks
Anaheim Mighty Ducks
Pittsburgh Penguins

The Fishing Industry:
Seattle Mariners
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
Miami Dolphins
Florida Marlins
San Jose Sharks
New Jersey Nets

The Demographers Industry:
Boston Celtics
New York Yankees
New York Metropolitans
New England Patriots
Houston Texans
Vancouver Canucks

The Record-keeping Industry:
San Francisco 49ers
Philadelphia 76ers

I'd like to think that I have a high tolerance for pain. Why? Because that's what tough guys have, and who doesn't want to be tough? Rugged, but sensitive. That's me in a nutshell. Or, at least it would make a nice jeans advertisement.

But, seriously, we all have this concept of a pain tolerance. And, clearly, such a thing exists, but I really think there's no possible objective way to measure it. Because, honestly, you could take two (either extremely gullible, masochistic, or stupid) people, blindfold them (so that anticipation doesn't have anything to do with it) and have them put their hands on a table, and hit them increasingly hard in the same exact spots with hammers, or icepicks, or whatever, and see who reacts first. But what would that prove? Maybe one person just has less sensitive nerves. Maybe they're partially paralyzed. Maybe their hand was asleep. To me, that's not "tough". That's not impressive. I want to see the guy who feels like every bone in his hand has been shattered, and a billion hot pokers are inside his hand, but he just sits there as if nothing is going on. Hell, I want to BE that guy. Minus experiencing that pain, of course.

At any rate, aside from some way of intercepting the pain sensors in the brain and measuring them, I think there's no real way to determine who really has a high pain tolerance and who doesn't. Plus, you'd need to have a way of measuring intolerance. Cuz, really, what defines pain intolerance? Women giving birth are said to be tolerating a lot of pain, but what choice do they really have? When I get hurt, I don't want to go run and hide, I actually get angry almost immediately. I'm talking like when I stub a toe, or whack my elbow, or some acute, non-critical injury. It's unfortunate, because I just get this urge to punch the nearest person to me at the time. Usually, that's whomever has seen my stupidly injure myself, and is asking "Are you ok?" Yeah, I'm fine, leave my stupid in-pain ass alone! Does that count as pain intolerant? Or would I have to faint to qualify?

I'm now up to (or down to) #14. And added some comments as well.

Ok, jerks, no one's commented in a while except for Lauren. At any rate, Blogger now supports comments, so I'm going to move towards using their comments system. We'll see if that's any better. Jerks.

So, when you're driving on a highway, and then you get off onto surface streets, and you tend to go really fast because otherwise it seems like you're just going too damn slow, the word they've made up for that is "velocitation". Sounds pretty formal. I had an experience today that I've had many times before, but it made me think a bit. I experienced "Escalation Velocitation". I was exiting the Metro, and approached the escalator. As I approached the escalator, it was very clear to me that it was off. It wasn't moving. This was obvious to even my primitive monkey brain. Nevertheless, as I stepped onto the escalator, it felt to me that I was moving backwards - similar to what happens when you get OFF an escalator - your body starts moving slower than expected. But I KNEW the escalator wasn't moving. I KNEW I wasn't going to be carried by the escalator. Nevertheless, some part of my consciousness wasn't paying attention, because that part of me expected to be propelled forward, and was a bit shocked when I wasn't. Apparently that part of me didn't get the memo.

This disturbs me. Escalators are not natural. It means that I have taken so many escalators in my life that it is now ingrained in my being to expect to move faster when I approach something that looks like an escalator even if I know it's not moving. It's like I've developed a new instinct. One that's completely useless. I know it's not that reasonable, but I'd to have as much control over my body as possible. It bothers me that something completely foreign now owns part of me. Are there other devices that have stolen my soul? If I were to sit in front of a broken TV, would the screen start looking really dim because it wasn't on? If I get in a car that's broken, will I eventually start to feel like I'm going backwards? And can I suppress this escalator instinct, or is it now permanent? If I were to not take an escalator for, say, 15 years, would that be enough to no longer experience this feeling? I demand answers!

So, there are tons of little annoyances about flying. (George Carlin does a fantastic routine about this. I'd love to rip him off and take the credit here, but I'll resist the urge.) I mentioned earlier how frustrating it is when people are slower than dirt deplaning, and, I suppose, enplaning. (That's getting off and on the plane, for you laypeople.) One thing that I've always found silly is the need to turn off all electrical devices when the plane is taking off and landing. Now, maybe I'm just ignorant, but it would seem to me that this is asinine. I do understand that recently, more and more devices have wireless capabilities, and it just might be possible for their signals to interfere with the plane's navigation signals. Maybe. But I doubt it. Maybe it's not worth taking the risk. However, this is not a new thing. I remember when I was younger, and fun electronic toys simply consisted of a small blinking light and frequent beeping. Even then, they made you turn electronic devices off. Maybe they just hadn't grasped the mystical voodoo behind such things, and thought that the Gods of Electricity would be angered if the toys weren't shut off, so as a small sacrifice to them, they were shut off in order to increase the likelihood of a safe flight. It seems things haven't changed. But clearly, it really makes no difference - or, put it this way - I've never heard of a flight on which it has made a difference. I'll forget to turn something off, and my flights haven't yet crashed. And I'm sure there are people less cognizant of the electrical devices they own ("You mean this Game Boy is ELECTRONIC?! What will they think of next?") than I am, so this must happen many, many times a day, on many different flights. Furthermore, the simple fact is that you just can't shut off all of your devices, even if you try. What if people have pacemakers? Artificial limbs? What if they have embedded radio tags in their brain, implanted by the government to track their every move? There are plenty of such people (even the last kind - don't try to deny it), but I don't see planes falling out of the sky. I don't see them getting lost in the clouds because their navigational abilities have been crippled by some elderly gentleman with a heart problem. (Right, because they're lost in the clouds, so I can't see them? Well, we'd likely hear about such occurrences on the news, I would hope.) So it's all BS. Just let me us my Palm Pilot while we're taking off. That's all I ask.

I don't know about you, but I'm suffering from an acute case of Reaganitis. Now, I've been traveling for work the past few days, and therefore have been in South Carolina. Normally, this would be quite unfortunate, as this particular area of South Carolina (Sumter, near Shaw Air Force Base) has nothing but trailer parks and signs making reference to Jesus. However, in this case, it's been rather fortuitous, as Sumter is a bit cut off from the rest of civilization, and has thus been infested with less Reagan-related information particles than, say, Washington, DC might be. And even the less polluted air of Sumter is enough to start giving me dry heaves.

Now, I'm all for respecting a man who served the United States, even if I don't respect his policies. Frankly, at the time, I was too young to care about his policies, so aside from his political affiliation, I don't really have a strong opinion on Reagan one way or the other. (And, even if I did, I have been trying to avoid politics in this blog - not because I think you might not want to read about it, but because I fear of going off on an insane rant and being hauled away, maybe because of some Patriot Act provision...oops, there I go.) However, the level of coverage his deal has been getting is really out of control. The Federal Government shut down!! If he had been shot (well, he was shot, but shot and killed), then I could understand it. And, certainly, he was loved, whether or not he deserved it. But come on, people, let's get a grip. He was 93. His policies may have won the Cold War (I say "may" deliberately), but he also had his share of shortcomings and scandals. (Iran-Contra, gigantic recession, etc.) Maybe it's all part of a plan to grant his desire for smaller government, by shutting everything down for a day. Although, really, this is probably wasting millions of dollars in productivity, at a time when we likely could use it. Have a funeral, have Bush give a speech, but let's be a bit practical.

So, the federal government has no sense of perspective: What else is new? Well, it seems to me that the American public also has no sense of perspective, what with lining up for hours to pay their respects (by walking past the casket) of a man who they didn't know personally, and what they did know of him was only through the public persona he put on. Like I said, showing respect is nice and appropriate, but when you spend hours and hours out of your day to just walk by a casket, it seems that you're bestowing on yourself a sense of importance and connection that really is a bit skewed.

However, part of me kind of understands why this may be occurring at this time in history. Think about it: It's been since Reagan that we had a President that was similarly respected and adored. Now, people will debate average approval ratings, and it's certainly true that Clinton had similar, if not higher approval ratings during his term. But I do recall a much more sincere sense of honor, dignity, and respect that the President and his office commanded when Reagan was in office. I think part of it was that I was just a kid, and so the President just seemed so much cooler at the time. Also, part of it was that I wasn't really into politics, so I didn't know any shortcomings that Reagan had as a policymaker. Nevertheless, I still do think that when Reagan was in office, partly because of his personality and how he carried himself, and also because of how the political climate has changed, many Americans had a favorable view of the office itself. It was almost larger than life, beyond reproach, a little better than your normal human. Accurate or not, I think it's this feeling that's driving this outpouring of emotion, even if it is partially manufactured or fraudulent.

Since Reagan we've had the first Bush, who was viewed as a wimp and only served one term - clearly he didn't command the same amount of respect as Reagan, and bore the brunt of the recession responsibility, even if it was Reagan's fault. Then, there was Clinton, who might have, at the beginning of his term, had a similar level of respect. But, then he became all too human, and it's tough to have a great amount of love for a man one you know that he cheats on his wife with slutty government interns, even if he was a great politician. And, finally, we have our current President, who really had just been pretty awful. Even if you like his policies, he's clearly quite flawed, stubborn, arrogant, and not nearly the communicator that Reagan was.

So, add it all up and you have a Republican administration and Congress that's looking for an edge in the upcoming election. You have a President that was largely looked upon fondly that passes away. And, finally, you have a string of successive Presidents that have either been political failures, or had extreme character flaws, or both, and what do you get? Reaganitis. It may make sense, but it's not making me any less sick.

P.S. I couldn't resist. Here's my favorite Op-Ed columnist, Paul Krugman, talking a bit about Reagan's economic legacy. Here's another one, with a little Bush-bashing thrown in. Only read if you're in a political mood.

Man, I'm slow. Well, I've posted another couple of movies in my list, and I'm working on a longer post that's taking more time than I expected. In the meantime, I hope you're all enjoying the cicadas, and if you have no idea when I'm talking about, just send me a self-addressed stamped envelope, and I'll be happy to mail you some carcasses.

I just had a great time in California (mostly LA, San Diego), visiting friends and family there. However, I regret to inform both of you that virtually everything you have heard about California is a lie. I've been there before, but this time I decided to do some investigating journalism. Let me now debunk these myths that the fiercely pro-California media has been perpetuating:

- California is very warm. This is not true. While I was in California, Washington DC was warmer. This is very obvious manipulation of the media by the short and thong industry.

- LA traffic is terrible. Honestly, I think this myth has been pushed by the current residents of LA, trying to keep more people from moving there and stealing their precious natural resources. (They have plenty: Don't buy the crap about a power shortage or lack of drinking water.) While we were there, we were virtually always moving at top speed. There was certainly nothing like the Beltway traffic there, that's for sure.

- Disneyland has long lines. We never had to wait for more than half an hour for any of the rides. I mean, it was crowded, but I guess everyone was just waiting for the parade, because we never had any problems. I don't know who might be creating this myth, but Disney should start debunking it.

- California girls are prettier. Some are, some aren't. Their breasts are faker, though, that's for sure.

- John Wayne had big feet. Well, this isn't a well-known myth, but you should know that it's false. We went to Grauman's Chinese Theater and found his footprint in the concrete, and it's pretty tiny. Bigger than Shirley Temple's, but not by much. He must have been a dainty fellow.

- You have to be important to get a star on the "Walk of Fame". Not true. I guess the propagators of this lie are those with stars, who want to increase their standing in life. Some of the people with stars include Jamie Lee Curtis and Steven Seagal. Hell, you don't even have to be real: Kermit the Frog (who is actually deserving), Snow White, and even the RUGRATS have a star!

- Rodeo Drive is nice. Well, it is kinda nice, but they let ME walk on it, so it's obviously not THAT nice.

- California has earthquakes and mudslides. We were there for over 4 days and did not experience one earthquake or mudslide! Not one! It was a bit windy one day, though.

I'm glad that the truth will finally emerge. My friends, if I suddenly disappear, and then am found buried in a vat of citrus fruit, you'll know why. But the truth must be known!