A Challenge!

I always brag about how I have the most worldly knowledge - and this is a chance for all of you to prove me wrong.

http://samgine.com/globetrotter-xl/

At this website is a game. You are presented with a map and you're given a location. Click on where you think that location is.

It's timed, so you can't cheat.

My high score is 11,442. Most people seem to approach the 4-5k mark. Beat me if you dare.

EDIT: High score table below - The new mark of mine is 18,790...

High Scores!

18,790 - Herc

18,619 - Daniel

17,802 - Paige

14,679 - Nick

11,442 - Herc - Original Mark

That's no moon...that's a space station.

So I saw the above picture today and couldn't resist the urge to guffaw uncontrollably. They play about as anemically as Cleveland himself sounds. Might as well change the uniform now, and that helmet has needed a logo - heck, the team itself needs a logo, and don't even talk to me about the impish elf creature they had as their logo several years ago. That would never work in today's NFL, these gentlemen are the laughingstock of the league as it is.

In any case, it's time for me to bring up something I long ago forgot to write about. Well, not long ago, more like two weeks ago - and I was reminded again today, when stopped at a red light, I donated a few dollars and all the change in my car to a Veterans for Veterans collector at the side of the street. The event this actually reminded me of occurred those two weeks ago, when again, stopped at a redlight, I saw your typical homeless man on the side of the street asking for donations. Usually, I just ignore them - personally, I don't believe in helping out the poor/hungry/homeless (Woah! Now that's a radical opinion. I'll blog about why I believe these things in the future. For now, don't get all touchy, I actually have a defense of it.) - so I just ignored him when we walked by on the passenger side. When he returned back on the left hand side (it was a slow light) - he stopped by my window, yet not to ask for money. He asked me,

"Were you a helicopter pilot?"

"Oh, the decal on the back of my car? No, that's out of respect for my father, he was an Army helicopter pilot."

"I see - I jumped out of those more than my fair share of times back in the day."

"You were in combat? Vietnam?"

"No, Grenada, Panama and Desert Storm."

"Ohhh, back in '83."

I was incredibly interested. It's almost impossible to find a Grenada war veteran. Most people don't even have a clue about that invasion, or the Panama one. I wouldn't expect anyone to, honestly, outside of me and a few of my colleagues with a history bent, so I'll give you a short synopsis before I continue with the story.

Now, the US was still pre-occupied with the Communist threat in the Caribbean - and area that they still viewed under their control as per the Monroe doctrine many decades prior (or even Teddy's Big Stick policy) - and when Grenada obtained independence from England in the 70s, it went through several years of political turmoil, ending in a socialist coup in the early 80s led by a man named Maurice Bishop, if I remember correctly - which also raised some concern in the US. However, the military wasn't going to have any of that, and there was yet another coup d'etat - Bishop was placed under arrest, and summarily executed. This raised all sorts of hell in the region - especially for the US, which had a few hundred students in a medical school on the island, and was concerned for their safety - fearing they might be used as bargaining chips. The US moved quickly to act, along with a few other Caribbean nations. Despite a UN condemnation (so what else is new - and I thought Woodrow's League of Nations was ineffective - go figure), the US had already made up its mind - and proceeded to coordinate a joint-forces (Navy, Air Force, Army) attack with several thousand troops. The entire operation lasted less than two months, and succeeded in completely overwhelming the Grenadan soldiers. The pre-coup government was re-established, and the students and other American citizens were moved from Grenada.

...now, we spoke for a bit about his experiences there - I treated him to a meal - and to me, it was the sort of morale boost that the people needed following the vastly unpopular and unsuccessful Vietnam fiasco a decade prior - and he was happy to have played a role in it, but he wasn't done. We didn't reminisce too much about the details (as much as I would have wanted to, I was in a bit of a rush) - but we did go over the Panama invasion in '89 (no, this time I'm not doing you the favor of telling you what it was about - let's just say Noriega had pissed off enough people and should never have suspended Panama's constitution) as well as his involvement in Desert Storm. I was impressed, but also wondered how he ended up on the side of the street.

Personally, I have an incredible amount of respect for soldiers, past and present. Now, whether that comes from reading too many books and historical accounts; or perhaps too many Hollywood movies that glorified the camraderie of combat, I'll never know. I respect any combatant, from the German paratrooper in WW2 (the popular notion that every German in WW2 was a Nazi is completely ludicrous - and as preposterous as saying that every soldier we have abroad is a Democrat in agreeance with Obama's policies) to the French sailor during the Napoleonic era. But moreso in the present day, when our veterans of this century fought not only to protect our own sovereignty but that of other people - I can't help but have the utmost reverence for them. We can't understand what they have gone through, not even in the slightest, unless we were there with them - simply watching "Saving Private Ryan" is not enough. If you know a veteran, thank them. If you see veterans asking for donations, give it to them. If you personally know a soldier, talk with him or her. Understand their side of the story. You'll feel all the better for it. I would've killed to have been alive in the 70s to correspond with former Großadmiral Karl Doenitz. Alas, I suppose that's what books are for.

-------------------------

On this note, I just want to say that, if you don't workout for whatever reason, I strongly believe you should start somehow. Personal fitness is greatly ignored in this country for some reason or another - and I don't even want to hear the "I don't have the time or the money" excuse. Eating healthy and staying fit is something almost anyone can do. Just takes a little determination and self-control. Anyway, moving on - don't make the picture make you feel bad!

------------------------------

Since I haven't done a movie review in a while, I felt I should drop one more off before I conclude for today - and I decided to review my favorite movie since I saw it once again recently.

Now, when it comes to historical movies, I'm excessively picky. Whether it's a WW2 picture in which soldiers are holding their MP40s correctly or P-40s are flying like X-Wings (I'm talking to you, Pearl Harbor) - or ancient epics where the dialogue is excessively bad (Troy - I still love the movie but...seriously?) - I always quested to find the ideal historical picture.

By now, of course, I have found it. Brimming with historical accuracy, terrific acting, a thrilling story, outstanding sound and set design, yet cursed to have the misfortune of being released around the same time as the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Peter Weir's Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is truly a spectacular epic that deserves merit as one of the most brilliant period pieces to come from Hollywood. While it was up for a considerable amount of Academy Awards, it would lose all the ones in which it had to face off against LotR: RotK, which again, relegated it to relative obscurity to all but the most enthusiastic film connoisseurs (i.e. - your humble writer).

Set at the turn of the 19th century, in which Napoleon had begun his conquest of Europe and was proceeding to threaten England with invasion - Master and Commander takes its war to the oceans - where French vessels are raiding British merchant commerce. The HMS Surprise, under the command of the stubbornly tough Captain Jack Aubrey (brilliantly played by Russell Crowe), are given orders to intercept the French privateer Acheron, and either sink, burn, or capture her. When the vessel appears out of nowhere in the early morning and devastates the Surprise, the two ships engage in a daring cat-and-mouse game that tests the nerve every soul onboard.

The story is not just a one-trick pony about naval warfare - no, the premise is deeper than that. It searches into the very depths of a man's personal conflict between duty and his friends, between choosing the lesser of two evils, and keeping his crew calm. Russell Crowe's character is also expertly countered with Paul Bettany's Doctor Stephen Maturin, the voice of reason aboard the vessel, and never one to back down from Captain Aubrey. But it is also the parts played by the other members of the ship, from the youngest midshipman to the cook and Royal Marines that makes this such a strong film. You feel for the troubles of each character as they sail through the oceans.

Two things that make this film stand out from the rest, at least for me, is the attention to historical detail. Every aspect of a 19th century man-o'-war is detailed intricately - every part of the ship properly identified, from the mizzentopgallant to the taff rail, to the uniforms of the young officers (accurately casted as being teenagers, from fourteen to seventeen, if I remember) and the personas of the enlisted men. The dialogue was also scripted beautifully - placing you right on the quarterdeck of the ship. What actually takes you from your couch right onto the waters though, is the brilliant sound design. Not a single stock sound was used for the movie - from the muzzle blast of an eighteen-pounder cannon to the whirling gales around Cape Horn, the sound designers in charge of this movie gave it their best. With each creak of timber to a pouring rain, you find yourself transported onto the Surprise. Everytime I watch this film I can't help but smile at the brilliance of the sound. This isn't a movie you watch - no, this is a movie you experience.

Of course, I must note that the movie isn't for everyone. Those easily amused by teen slashers and mindless action flicks will find themselves occasionally bored by Master and Commander, and it is them I pity. Go see Pearl Harbor instead, where the Japanese, apparently, laid attack to an American love triangle. But if you do enjoy an incredible adventure, then, by all means, ask me to come over and watch this. I certainly won't mind seeing it again. I can guarantee you that watching it here is an experience like no other. You'll be glad I recommended it - and you'll understand why it is my favorite film of all time.

------------------

No science tidbits for today, as I'm off to work out, but as usual, I will leave you with a hilarious image.

I know you remember Duck Hunt. That gun couldn't fire fast enough. Until next time.

Do Real Ninjas even make lists like these?

Somehow, my bathroom door is squeaking a lot, and it reminds me of the sounds that the Dilophosaurus makes in Jurassic Park. Upsetting me. Reminded me of this here cartoon:

One of my trends today has been putting up a series of "Real Men Don't Do" lists - things that, through a popular consensus, are things that men shouldn't do. Most of these are not of my creation, but things I was recommended I should include that I also approve of. Now, for your reading pleasure, I present to you the

Real Ninjas (Ninjas, of course, being a euphemism for another, much more harrowing n-word) Don't Do List.
(For all you sensitive to the issue of political correctness, you can read the above as the 'Real Men Don't Do' List)


Real Men...

-Don't cuddle.
-Don't write books.
-Don't get carpal tunnel.
-Don't get 'migraines' or 'stress headaches'
-Don't complain
-Don't use emoticons or 'smileys'
-Don't use the heart symbol. Ever.
-Don't say OMG or anything of that ilk
-Don't show emotion.
-Don't show fear, either.
-Don't get excited. We get 'amped'
-Don't get nervous. We get 'tense'
-Don't use more than one exclamation point in a sentence.
-Don't alternate between lower-case and upper-case when typing
-Don't hold down keys to emphasize (i.e., - "good to see youuuuuuuuuu")
-Don't misspell (minority slang misspellings may be allowed)
-Don't complain
-Don't get depressed
-Don't display bitch-ass ness.
-Don't do any of the above three via the internet
-Don't get mushy over a woman (if you're single)
-Don't take facebook quizzes (boredom may be excused)
-Don't become vegans. Or vegetarians.
-Don't say 'fabulous' 'lovely' or 'splendid' when describing things.
-Don't say the word cute. (Sorry, Jonathan, but if you're reading this, never say 'the cutest thing ever' AGAIN)
-Don't say "fuck my life" or "FML" or any such thing. We make love to our lives.
-Don't play the harp. (Or the clarinet. Or the oboe. Or the flute. Or along those lines.)
-Don't follow 'Twilight'
-Don't use words such as "nibble" or "nuzzle" or "giggle"
-Don't giggle, for that matter. We chortle.
-Don't cockblock


...there are, of course, many more, and they will be added to this list afterwards. If you didn't catch yesterday's blog post, it's much more interesting than this one. Continue scrolling down to read it.

STAND BACK! I'm about to try...science

Ha! So you actually thought I was going to talk about women and sexism and all that? No thanks, that'll make all the Ralphy T's of the world (Dont understand the reference? Click here) act up. (But imagine having been married in the '50s!) In any case, by popular demand, I'm going to talk about my first Master's project, which was received quite well (despite some last-minute reservations, on my part, anyway) - and became only the 2nd review I've ever had that received no criticism. So more on that soon. Also, following that, I'm going to talk about some scientific discoveries I've read about lately I feel everyone should know about. So let's get started.

The project, when it was assigned to us, was quite possibly the most confusing project I've ever received. At UM, for example, the projects assigned to us were simple, in theory - here's a site - here's a project program - now design it. I.e., design an x-amount of sq. ft library/museum, make sure it has so-and-so rooms in it, and place it at this intersection of Downtown Miami. Alas! That was not to be here at FIU. My professor hands us a character to design a dwelling for. Not something along the lines of 'make a house for a 40-year old married businessman and his kids' - what we are given is a mythological character, and told to use the features of his story to design a 'dwelling' for him/her/them - not a house. A dwelling. Yeah, marinate in that one for a bit. I sure did. I had no idea what in the hell that meant. Well, in any case, the character I chose - because I knew their story well - was Daedalus and Icarus.

Now if you don't know your Greek Mythology (read a book, folks) - I'll summarize the story real quick. A looooooong time ago, King Minos of Crete was given a white bull by the god Poseidon, so that he could sacrifice it to honor the Gods. King Minos kept the bull instead (it's an albino bull, I mean, C'mon. I would've kept it too) - and this angered Poseidon, who tricked his wife into falling in love with this bull. The wife fell so deeply in love with this bull that she had the top craftsman of the time, Daedalus, construct a wooden cow that she could fit inside so that she could mate with the bull. He did, so she got hers, and out of this, the dreadful Minotaur was born! Now, everybody knows the Minotaur story. In any case, King Minos had Daedalus build a labyrinth to contain the minotaur, and out of fear that Daedalus would reveal the answer to the maze, had him and his son, Icarus, imprisoned upon the tallest tower. In their bid to escape, Daedalus constructed wings out of wax and feathers; and told his son not to fly too high (the sun would melt the wax) or too low (the sea spray's salt would dissolve the wax). They were able to flee, but the eager young Icarus, wishing to soar to the heavens, flew too high - the sun melted the wax, thus he promptly fell to the sea and perished. Daedalus would name the water where his son fell the Icarian Sea.

Alright, so - make a dwelling (remember, not a house) for this fella. Yeah. Where the hell do you start? I remember getting all cutest in the beginning, trying to make these wing-shaped structures - to which end I was told by my professor to break it down to the basic principles of the story. And by the end of the project, I (apparently) had nailed them down perfectly.

One of the first premises of my project is that I interpret Daedalus as the monster, not the Minotaur. He helped to create it, to contain it. His invention caused the death of his son. He tried to kill his nephew later on because of jealousy, and was then outcasted by society, forced to live in exile. I broke it down to five main elements: Father and Son, Imprisonment, Reaching the Heavens, Fall, and Remembrance. To that end, I designed a pair of tall towers - with a steel beam skeleton, covered with two-sided aluminum panels - matte on the inside, reflective on the out, with a series of weaving staircases inside of them. I sited it on abandoned tiny (128' x 158') island near the ocean, a desolate beach in the Caribbean (not the Aegean, that would've been an easy cop-out) that is difficult to reach. Model shots (section model to see the inside, about 2' tall):

Now why did I build it like this? Let's go back to those 5 Points.

Father and Son: Daedalus and Icarus, of course. I was trying to diagram a young Icarus, with his arms outstretched and ready to leap, calmingly held in place by Daedalus, holding his son by the shoulders.

Imprisonment: A steel skeleton frame, with aluminum panels that have a thin separation from one another on the first tower, creates this feeling of imprisonment. With the only direct light source being the open-to-the-elements skylight above, the thin openings create bars of light in an otherwise bleak space - the matte interior does not reflect light well. The stairs are daunting, changing in rise/run and width constantly, going from a 10" rise and run with a 42 inch width, to a railing-less spiral staircase of 12" rise (your average stair rise is 7") twisting up to a stair right against the frame of another 12" rise and run. Why are the stairs so challenging?

Reach the Heavens: Can any of us reach the heavens? Of course not. Icarus tried and met his death. To this end, at the top of the tapering tower is a small opening to the sky, yet you can never reach it. The stairs end 17 feet below it. It is impossible to get to the Gods, as Icarus tried - and a challenge to even attempt, hence the stairs steep climbs and lack of railing.

Fall: Right at the end of the staircases of the tallest tower, seemingly right about to reach the sky, an opening appears. It leads to a 20' long staircase leading to the smaller tower - constructed of a steel frame with glass steps, again with a 12" rise and run. No railing, fully exposed to the elements. This simulates your fall - each step is dangerous, looking down you can see the sand and ocean at the base of the tower.

Remembrance: On the second tower, we have a glass and steel platform (visible on the model shots) overlooking the ocean, right on the edge - the memory of his son living on, Daedalus can reflect on his saddening loss. Coming down a second set of slightly-easier steps, you emerge right at the edge of the water, where a long wooden bridge takes you out onto the water, where you can be at peace.

Other moves made:

- Reflective exterior: Tower supposed to be invisible to passersby from the ocean - no one is supposed to know where Daedalus is now that he is in exile

- Changing facade angles: to reflect different views of the sky/ocean when viewed from the outside

- Labyrinth upon approach to island - since Daedalus is the monster, it is supposed to keep him contained and prevent anyone from getting to him or him from getting out

So upon explaining all my moves to the jurors, they definitely approved of every one of them, even the radical one of interpreting Daedalus as the monster. I was fighting hard near the end of the critique to urge to smile (real ninjas dont smile - lol) - but surprised and pleased as to how it went. It was an interesting project - code and ADA (disabilities act) be damned! Just design it justifiably and ensure it stands. Now to use that design capability as a springboard into my Master's Thesis, which is coming up next...

====================================

Now for some science! Learn a little something - and from the banks of my knowledge, I'll withdraw some quick nitpicks that I found interesting in recent reading/conversation:

No, it's not a computerized image or a scene from the new movie 2012. What are you seeing is an incredibly rare and recently recognized cloud-type, undulatus asperatus, or as one of my fellow academics humorously calls it, undulatus nosferatu (after the terrifying 1920s film). Exactly what causes its formation is completely unknown; and despite its terrifying appearance, it does not bode ill like your typical cumulonimbus arcus cloud - it never seems to end in a storm, but rather start to appear following rough weather. Ranging low, at around 10,000 feet into the troposphere; they are recently beginning to gain ground as a new classification, since they defy any other meteorological conventions. Although it is unlikely you will see any in Florida - imagine taking a trip to Europe or to the American Midwest and seeing a formation such as this above you - surely, you would run back into your house and decide, 'To hell with this, I'm staying inside today.'

Now, while I did want to talk about how the swine flu is being incredibly blown out of proportion by conventional media (lest they forget the actual terror of the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed about 50 million in roughly 2 years, and infected 1/3rd of the ENTIRE planet. Think about that. The Swine Flu pales in comparison, and its viral strain is very similar (they are both classified H1N1) - they are based on cytokine storms, which in essence, causes an overreaction of your immune system, making it attack you, your own organs - hence why the young (adolescents, young adults) and healthy are the most at risk, since they possess the strongest immune systems, thus the ones most capable of doing damage. I should also note that, in viral labs throughout the world, the viral strain of the Spanish Flu remains frozen for study - it would make for a great James Bond movie, I think. But I'll go more detail at another time, since I still need to fully understand viral mutations through antigenic shift. I actually meant to talk for a short bit about our friend the coelacanth.

Now, we've all seen Jurassic Park. Extinct dinosaurs were brought back to life, despite having been extinct since the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago. (Ironically, recently, paleontologists - including noted Jack Horner - were able to extract blood vessels from the fossil of a Tyrannosaurus, leading to the possibility of actually finding intact dinosaur DNA - although recreating a T-Rex is still not possible - but through a recent method developed, the possibility of reverse-evolving a direct descendant of a dinosaur, a bird; a dinosaur-looking animal is possible within a decade - OSN, build your bunkers now, I am!)

But back to the coelacanth. Known only from the fossil record as a predecessor of the modern fish, dating from the Devonian period (400mill years ago) until they went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (like the dinosaurs). Or at least, they were believed to be extinct. Until they were re-discovered off the coast of Africa early in the 20th century! Ironically, African fisherman had long known the species as food - but it became a greater scientific discovery in the 80s and 90s when the species was being discovered throughout the vast portion of the southeastern coasts of Africa! It remains the record holder for the species rediscovered after the longest period of time - leading to speculation that perhaps other species have survived that haven't yet been discovered...

In any case, that's all for know, and since I've been away for so long, I had to leave behind quite a read. Until the next time...

...they call me...MR PIG! AHHHH!!!!

Well, it's been some time since I've posted anything here, and now with some free time I found it prudent to write up a short (in my terms) article. I'm deciding to base it on a quick snippet I read today, which was from the US Army. According to their statistics, 75% of youth aged between 17-24 are unfit fot military service - whether through physical inability (they're fat), unable to pass the entrance exams (they're stupid - have you seen one of these tests? I could've passed it in 8th grade), are high school drop-outs, or have criminal records. Think about the numbers for a second. Seventy five percent. That's 3/4. Basically, it means that some of the people you know are either fat, stupid, criminals, or failures (hmm - they may be on to something here). Now, I've forever ranted about the state of today's youth - whether jokingly calling some kids running around @ a Best Buy 'whippersnappers' or 'scamps'; or delivering a serious tirade about the general disdain for fitness and education that seems prevalent in today's generation. Yet, to be perfectly honest, I have no compassion for them. These are all things that are up to each individual to fix and deal with. You don't have to be dumb - I honestly think the diagnosis of 'Attention Deficit Disorder' is a sham, by the way - and you don't have to be overweight. There really is no excuse. My primary point, besides this all - is what defines intelligence?

Is it being well-read, having diverse knowledge of any fields of study? Is it having well-defined critical thinking and ability to provide analysis? Is it what we know as 'common sense'? Is it receiving all As in school? Is it being able to win at 'Trivial Pursuit'? Or perhaps its a combination of any of these, or something I am forgetting?

The thing is, that for the most part, I do consider myself as an intelligent individual, so I tend to make quantitative comparisons of others in relation to myself, or what I know. I consider myself well-read, most specifically in the areas of history, geography, geology, biology, zoology, archaeology - but then again, what do I truly know? I can rant off facts like its nothing, but does this make me intelligent? If I can elaborate on the Saffir-Simpson scale and the Fujita scale; or the decisive defeat suffered by the Russians at Port Arthur in the early 20th century, or readily identify all of Jupiter's main moons - does that then mean I can look down on people who don't?

I won't lie. I do. I do have this tendency to belittle - especially when it comes to the most basic of things, at least, in my opinion. People should know certain things. Whether or not they are necessary to get by in life is another animal (should I make a quagga joke?) entirely. Someone might respond to me by saying, "Sure, you know the top speed and armament of a P-51D Mustang; but I make twice as much as you in a year." ((437mph and six 0.50 Browning MGs, btw)) How would I respond to that? I'd have no answer. He'd have me beat. Yet let me get to this point in a bit. Back to what I was saying before, obviously, I don't know everything. I don't know more about history than a historian, more about Hymenoptera than an entomologist. This thus raises the question as to whether or not it is worthwhile to know anything outside of your field of study, if any. I mean, I know mechanics or body shop owners who have an intricate, intense knowledge of the workings of an internal combustion engine despite having little formal schooling or even a GED - and on the flip side, I know several upper-middle class professionals who couldn't change a tire if their life depended on it. So what really matters? In the end, I am going to say that it is up to each individual to gauge what they think is important to know, and learn it. Far be it for my ((undercover)) nerd self to impose my own sanctions on others for whatever biased reason I can come up with. But I will continue to make fun of you, though.

...ESPECIALLY if you lack common sense. It's undefinable, since everyone has differing perspectives on what exactly common sense entails - but everyone has a vague understanding of it. There are certain things everyone should be able to do by now. Read. Write properly, spell properly. Do basic math. You know, kid shit. Problem solve. So on.

The flip side of the coin (/no Two Face), in my opinion; is the emphasis that our culture places on income over education. That ol' 'get rich or die trying' mentality. If I remember something that a Romanian friend of mine once said in high school: "What's the point of classes? To go to college? So in the end I can stress and work my own boring nine-to-five to be able to put my own kids through college?" I suppose that is one way to think about it. I remember back when I first announced I was going to Grad School to get my Master's and that I was going to take my GRE, I ran into quite an interesting series of questions among some of my circles. "What's the GRE?" "Why are you doing more school, you just graduated college!" "What's a Master's program?" Besides the obvious economic reasons, what struck me hardest was that - they just couldn't understand why. Why, if you can start making some money now, would you go back to school? Because I'm not that easily satisfied. I want to learn more. Not because I have to, in the case of medical school - I want to. What's wrong with learning? Do we, as a society, really have to portray learning in such a negative light? Because that's what it is, whether jokingly or not. You see somebody reading a textbook on a weekend or on a sunny day and you tend to automatically make presumptions. I have a book on my coffee table at my house and visitors will ask why I own a book (and they've never seen the library I have stashed in my closet) - on the assumption that I don't look like someone who is well-read (as if there was a jewelry to knowledge inverse correlation I was unaware about). I remember having a conversation with an architecture professor about aviation in the 30s, to which he asked me, "What class did you take to learn this?" - when I responded, "I read on my own time" - he sounded positively shocked. That's what it has come down to. And don't tell me people don't learn because they lack the time. Nobody lacks the time. They just lack the will to learn (or in the case of America's youth, as I stated in my opening paragraph, to work out, study, and stay out of jail. lol). That's it. But hey, do you. I'll do me. If you think knowledge is a waste of time, and you just want to keep working at your dead end job to pay your bills, more power to you. Just remember we all started at the same point in life, and through our own decisions, we end up where we are now.

...I could also very easily rant about the lack of intelligence in some women I know, but that's a topic for a different time. Maybe later. Besides, I think that's more of a Miami phenomenon anyway. Bless them, at least they can cook.

((Disclaimer notes - anything I mentioned in the above reading I actually know about and wrote off the top of my head. Didn't have to look anything up. Just saying. ::Kanye shrug:: Now go read something. May I recommend the particularly fascinating fields of astronomy, paleontology, and european history?)

...I haven't been heckled this much since that one time I was Dennis Miller

First things first. Citric acid in an open wound might be the most annoying minor pain ever. In any case.

Fine, fine, fine - I admit defeat. It's only justifiable that I accept defeat gracefully since I personally embodified bravado in the few days leading up to that AFC East clash last night. I admit, I did nothing but talk, basically, massive shi- the entire time. Not only that, but I was so surefire of a win. All the signs were there. I had a good luck blessing on my drive up North when a plane flies directly over my car when I drive by the airport (I consider this to always be a good sign) - my fantasy team was getting blown out of the water (the past 2 and so seasons, there's a distinct correlation between fantasy team losing and Jets winning, or vice versa) - Jets were looking good, Fins had only beaten the Bills - etc. Alas! What ends up happening? The New York defense fails to show up to the game. No turnovers, sacks, and few stops on 3rd down. The Jets offense, ironically, much maligned in the game versus N'Awlins last week, came to play - the addition of Braylon Edwards seems to be the real deal. I don't feel particularly inclined to talk about the details of the game, however; I'm sure most of you witnessed it first hand. What I thoroughly enjoyed, however, was the experience of being at an NFL game, since it was my first one. From the nonstop heckling for the better part of 4-5 hours, the getting hyped over each Jets play and the disappointment over every Miami success - to watching a random fan get strangled or another judo kicked in the chest - to being styled on by an 8 year old Dolfan in front of me who would turn around to me and utter, "What happened?" whenever the Fins made a play - it was all worth it. Never mind the fact I went with three diehard Dolphins fans and met up with one of my closest peoples (she is also, ironically, a Dolfan) there. That's already supposed to be enjoyable. But you all have to admit. It would NEVER be as enjoyable if I was a Dolphins fans like the rest of you. Hahaha. But in any case, I'm looking forward to that rematch on November 1st. Well done, Miami. (...jackasses.) But best believe I'm loyal to New York, crushing loss or not.
=================

Moving on - I need some suggestions regarding costumes for All Hallows' Eve - and I've narrowed it down to the following four choices - which one would you recommend I choose?

1. Gomez Addams - If you know the show, you would know I embody many of his characteristics. I'd have to practice the Freddy dance, though.

2. Rorschach - I'd have to practice my Jackie Earl Haley voice, but I've been wanting to do this one, despite the fact that I'm sure it's going to be this year's Joker. But the mask is an impediment to beverage drinking. But it's such a damn nice mask.

3. Original Red Power Ranger - Oh come on. This is the best costume ever. This is the one I've really wanted to find in my size. But they're all too short. But the helmet is the selling point here.

4. Jigsaw - Simply because I could freak mad people out with that mask. That mask still freaks me out. I can also say, "Let's play a game" perfectly - and as much as I would LOVE to ride around in a little red tricycle, it doesn't seem practical.

So give me a hand (Ha! Addams family joke) - I have about two and a 'heif' weeks left. They'd all cost around the same, sub-$50, so that's not a factor.
====================

Last but not least, I've been meaning to set about once and for all to publish an international guide for the rules of shotgun - as in, who gets front passenger seat in a vehicle when one is not the driver (/no Kurt Cobain). As a frequent driver and infrequent passenger, I believe I've been able to create a set of guidelines that, for the most part, should be universally agreeable:

1. Automatic shotgun is bequeathed for significant other/bf/gf/spouse of the driver. In this case, shotgun can never be called by any other party. It's just how it is.

2. Height. If there are no significant others present, then the next automatic shotgun spot is given to the party member that has a significant advantage in height. The discrepancy is 3" and a minimum height of 6'-1". Need leg room, you know. Under this height limit, it makes no difference.

3. Friendship. Yes, there's a hierarchy to these things. Following height order, closest friends are next. They can occasionally take precedence over a taller friend, but these are on an individual basis.

4. After these, shotgun is on a first come, first served basis. Shotgun can only be called within sight of the vehicle, and cannot be contested following this. The shotgun cycle resets following each exit from the vehicle, and must be re-called from then on.

5. People you are talking to. This one is particularly difficult to regularize. Male friends of a male driver who know that he has a woman that he is talking to come along are not required to give up their seat, but it is recommended. Male friends of a female driver are under no circumstances to give up their seat to some guy she might be talking to. He has to earn that. Female friends of a male driver have it up to their own discretion to switch their seat, the male driver cannot force a female friend to give up her seat. Likewise, female friends of a female driver are under no pressure to give up their seat, but the female driver can request it.

6. Males over 5'-11" should never have to ride bitch (middle seat of back row) EVER. It's a safety issue.

Just thought I'd get that clear to prevent future instances of miscommunication. And I leave you with this hilarious GIF from the movie Predator - well, combined with Duck Hunt. Cracks me up every time.

Some new NFL logos

Some new NFL logos representing the first four weeks of the season, courtesy of ESPN's Page 2 and artist Kurt Snibbe:

For all You Women Drivers Out There

http://www.facebook.com/NBA2K?v=app_7146470109#/video/video.php?v=90224569814&ref=nf

A cautionary video that'll have the women upset but the men dying of laughter.

Architecture - and other quick hits ( /no Chris Brown)

You know what I realized? There's nothing worse than seeing what you once coveted - but knew could never have - in someone else's hands. That happened to me today. The red Ford Flex I rented for a week back in March while my car was in the shop - that exact identical car (I could tell) - was being rented by some other lucky chap, and I saw it. It hurt - that car was almost a purchase after that week. Sigh. What? You didn't think I was talking about a woman? You did? HA! You should know me better than that! Check yourself. The last search party they sent off to find any trace of an emotion from me didn't make it through the ice and stone. In any case, let's start off with some NFL Quick Hits from Week 4!

• The Saints have to be taken seriously now. The Jets had their offense pretty much under wraps for the entire game, but the defense came up big, led by new acquisition Darren Sharper. Don't you feel as if he's been returning picks for touchdowns for decades? He's ageless. Hall-bound, like Rod Woodson. Mark Sanchez finally looked vulnerable. Maybe now the all-NY Super Bowl talk can relax - glad to see Shonn Greene finally get some carries, Thomas Jones has been ineffective all season so far.
• Ohhh, is Jim Zorn breathing a sigh of relief. If Tampa Bay had beaten him, that wouldve been two winless teams who got their first wins facing the Redskins. Jason Campbell will be seeing Aqib Talib in his nightmares tonight! But one wonders how long the Redskins can keep this up. And yes, that was a Clinton Portis AND an Antonio Bryant sighting! This was one the Bucs could've almost had.
• A friend of mine has been ranting about the Ravens defense, and how it seems to have fallen apart lately - that all the attention has been on their newfound offense. Well, now it all became obvious against the Patriots. It appears their demise has been greatly exaggerated. Or maybe this was Joe Flacco's first real test. They're still one of the best teams in the league - and the Patriots seem to have taken all that "dynasty over" talk after the Jets game to heart and have beaten up on two of last year's surprise playoff squads in a row. Randy Moss 6th all time in TDs? He's a monster. Joe Flacco needs another receiver bad.
• That Eli Manning injury didn't look too serious, right? So much for needing a primary receiver. Steve Smith looks to be the real deal. And did anyone else see that move that Hakeem Nicks put on his touchdown? I felt embarrassed. How did that KC defender feel?! This game could've gone worse for the Chiefs. Larry Johnson - well, this could be a long season for them.
• Tennessee?! Hello? Anyone home? The Titans made David Garrard and Mike Sims-Walker look like heroes. Somethings wrong with that pass defense. Is it Albert Haynesworth or Jim Schwartz they miss? 0-4 is too big of a whole, I feel. Especially winnable games against the Titans and Jaguars - Looking up at Indy at 4-0 in the division. Might not make the playoffs this year.
• Peyton is just Peyton. Seattle is by far way too injured to take on the Colts right now. Seneca Wallace is a gadget QB, and clearly not a game-winning backup. Especially without a Seahawks running game to take the pressure off him. They couldn't protect him either. Rob Mathis has 3 sacks on you? Looks like San Fran might run away with the division this year. Wait, and just who are these Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie receivers?!
• JaMarcus Russell, the reaper cometh. I think the Klobb from Goldeneye 64 has more accuracy than you do. The Texans were the defense to get you out of your funk, and alas! You can't even complete 50% of your passes. If Cash for Clunkers was still going on, the government would be giving you millions for each of those passes of yours. Meanwhile, it's good to see Steve Slaton finally get on track. Most importantly though, the HOU defense needed this game to prove to themselves that they can stop someone.
• Cincinnati CLEARLY looked past Cleveland. The overtime period took ALL 15 minutes to resolve the game. Cleveland got touchdowns too! Looks like Jerome Harrison has taken the starting job from slow Jamal Lewis. Carson Palmer again came through in the clutch, but this is a game that should never have gone to overtime. Cleveland! I can't think of anything from Cleveland outside of Drew Carey. Eric Mangini might be losing his squad.
• When I saw 21-21 on the DET/CHI game, I had hope for the Lions. Alas! It was to prove short lived. Matt Forte also found his groove, but most worrying is Matt Stafford's injury. I want to see Devin Hester and Johnny Knox have a footrace.
• That Buffalo O-line has holes big enough for buffaloes to run right through. They made the Chad Henne-led Dolphins look like contenders again. Although, I will give credit - that touchdown pass from Henne to Hartline was brilliantly thrown. It seems as though the Wildcat STILL seems to work for them, fad or not. As far as the Bills are concerned though, not all the blame can be placed on Trent Edwards' shoulders. That line resembles a set of turnstiles. Marshawn Lynch's much-ballyhooed return merited only 4 yards on the ground.
• No wonder the Rams are for sale. That was an embarrasing showing. The Niners scored on ALL facets of the game - offense, defense, and special teams. Steven Jackson's talents are wasted here - and Kyle no longer BOLLS outrageous. As if he ever did since coming out of Cal, anyway. Patrick Willis is a monster and superstar. Remember his name if you don't know it already!
• Wade Philips joins Jim Zorn on the NFC East hot seat. Are these Broncos for real? Did Brandon Marshall make a statement TD? Are the Broncos really 4-0?! Up is down! Black is white! The millennium approaches! Another powerful defensive showing by the Broncos, on the #1 running team in the league, is going to mean that pundits will now take this team seriously. Romo has an up game, then a down game - and so do the Cowboys. So much for starting strong. Josh McDaniels must've made a heck of a sacrifice to the football gods for this.
• ...I'm not even going to talk about Brett Favre.

==================================

On some days this week, I'm going to make some of my more intensive opinions on some present-day issues known - especially the ones I feel strongest about - i.e., Architecture, Environmental Conservation, and the Economy...and Space Ghost. I feel that, given some recent thoughts I've had, I felt I should start out with my major. It's gonna get long (which is what she wanted anyway...ba-zing), so get a drink. Or just close the page, this is probably more for architects.

“Any hack can build a dumb box.” Peter Eisenman provided me with this quote – which questions from the outset what qualifies as architecture versus what qualifies as Architecture – with a capital A. In a world where the majority of the populace is subjected to buildings throughout their entire day, one often forgets the fact that only 20% of all built structures were under the direction and criticism of architects – the rest are merely the products of builders and developers (who architects really don't like!). What these latter two build, however, is not considered architecture by the profession – since for the most part there is also a resounding belief that architecture is an art, ‘with high moral purpose in the formation and transmission of culture.’ Architecture isn’t just a way to convey contemporary culture – some architects view it is the way to convey contemporary culture. Thus, a few architects believe that they can effectively deal with present day socio-economical issues through their mastery of ‘formal manipulation’ – and I also believe that architects also possess the mindset that their own design is far more important than the social issues that surround them.


Despite the socioeconomic issues in our society - that are applicable in ANY project, what happens is that some architects seem to concern themselves moreso with the aesthetics of their designs – with what I call a binocular view of their project. As in, here is your site, put a building on it (what a friend of mine calls blob architecture) – the circumstances around the site are meaningless, often ending up ignored. I recently read about a good example – the renovation of Rome’s Olympic Stadium to house the 1990 World Cup. Debates in the late 1980s were raised over the expansion designs – which was necessary due to accommodate the expected larger crowds and increased circulation. Most of the criticism, however, was aimed primarily at the appearance of such an expansion – directed at how it would change the appearance of the sixty-year old stadium that had become a landmark. Only a single architect, Franco Purini, mentioned something different - that such a renovation and expansion would completely wreck the already congested urban fabric of Rome. How would it deal with traffic? Noise and air pollution? The construction process? It was mentioned that Rome; the so-called ‘Capital of architecture,’ had become solely important as a matter of looks – never mind the overcrowded conditions that Rome was facing in the modern-era. Architects are increasingly disregarding the context of their building – not taking into account their site’s surroundings, or even the people meant to inhabit them. These architects are seemingly content with form and beauty – believing that only they are blessed with some type of ‘special contact’ with ‘transcendental essence’ (I'm quoting the books I read later) – and considering that the public also holds on to this belief, that only architects have this ‘power.’ Yet I have never heard of ‘transcendental essence’ resolving, say, availability of affordable housing. It sure as hell hasn't resolved my inability to find someone who can beat me in Goldeneye or Mario Kart. Another example that was recently brought to my attention in class was Giuseppe Terragni's design for the Palazzo Littorio in Rome during the Mussolini era - that in the plans for the design, ruins from Ancient Rome are also shown - all historical buildings existent or not were shown. What they did, however, was take a ruin that was elsewhere in Rome, slap it near their site in drawing, and have an element in their project relate to it. To a building that isn't even there. Nobody questioned it. How many of you know the figure ground of Rome by heart? I dont.

In any case, each architect has their own ideas, I believe – a few share some basic opinions, yet they will all have their own individual twist and personal preference - I know I do. My personal interest in architecture has always dealt with social housing and urban development (and by always I mean in the past two years or so) – how the two interact in dealing with today’s socioeconomic issues. I also recently read of Ricardo Bofill, a Spanish architect who, in the 1970s and 1980s, was entrusted by the French government to develop a series of social housing projects for ‘villes nouvelles’ – new towns, as part of a continuing restructuring of the country a few decades after World War 2. Bofill had his own precocious ideals about the state of housing in America and Europe – he decried suburbia as an urban cancer that afflicted and destroyed neighborhood life. In France, he questioned why, in major cities, street views always terminated in some sort of reminder of the state. ‘As if the French state still had to reaffirm itself publicly to its citizens – as if it were unsure of itself.’ Bofill goes on to proclaim that simple residential housing was not architecture – merely man’s attempt to provide shelter. On a superfluous level, this is reiterating that most housing is, after all, not designed by architects. Yet Bofill, at this point, takes matters on a completely original (albeit controversial) tangent – he decides to place every-day, ordinary activities into his own crazy extraordinary settings. His social housing projects are on an enormous scale – palaces for 600 people instead of for an aristocrat. Multiple-story columns, grand courtyards, central monuments, vague classical detailing – all in an attempt to recall, in Bofill’s words, Versailles, or even the glory of Ancient Rome. The prospective residents of his housing projects are the impoverished lower-class – perhaps, in his view point, providing the low-income citizens with a grand structure is his own way of lifting up their morale and prospects, especially when considering that the comparable housing projects within the cities had all completely dissolved into near-slum conditions. His Abraxas complex at Marne-le-Vallee was his testament to his belief that architecture implied monumentality, that it was art intended to last 500 years – however, only 25 years after its construction, finds itself almost completely ignored by its tenants, a glorified apartment structure. Apartment buildings and grand complexes like these are not the way to resolve housing issues. How many times do I have to bring up the St. Louis Pruitt housing as an example of what NOT to do? Simply throwing in some high-density buildings in a low-class area is not going to resolve neighborhood issues. Sure, you have places to put people. But they do nothing but breed crime and isolation. Look at the projects in the Northeast.

A personal opinion is that Bofill is not alone in his desire to impart his own views on architecture and social issues upon the populace. I solemnly believe that there are designers out to make their mark in the world, make their name known and recorded in the history books – more so than to preoccupy themselves with the issues that permeate our society. Designers have steadily moved away from engagement from any social issues, even those that fall within their realm of common-sense professional competence - say, homelessness, the growing crisis in affordable and appropriate housing, the loss of environmental quality, and the challenge posed by congested urban areas. Although lately, the green movement has proliferated the design ranks and assured that sustainability remains a prime selling point; the other issues have fallen behind, lost in this desire to succeed. Besides - one thing that recently has started to drive me crazy is when architects brag about sustainability. As in, "Yes, my design features several sustainable aspects, that is why it is great." Bitch, get the hell out of here! At this point in time, EVERYTHING that is designed should be sustainable! You know what, out of spite, my next design is having a coal-burning room - and a chloroflourocarbon emitter in another. Maybe a baby-seal punting closet down the hall. For the record, I don't mean that you should be spending thousands of $ in new technology for sustainability, though. There are so many affordable steps you can take that don't break the bank. Get it together.

Now here's a person I feel strongly about. Frank Gehry’s designs are of the utmost beauty in form - I will say that - and his mind can clearly come up with some of the most revolutionary concepts in form – but sometimes he does forget about the effects of his buildings on his users. The Disney Concert Hall, for example, had some of its exterior surfaces of polished steel that not only reflected the sun, but also acted as a magnifying glass for it, causing incredible glare on some surrounding apartment complexes; and boosting up temperatures to the unbearable triple-digit range. While they were resolved eventually, again, issues propped up in his Stata Center for MIT – a wide array of structural concerns and maintenance problems that resulted in a lawsuit. Yet the media CONSTANTLY hypes up every design of his as if it were the most revolutionary thing since Blu-ray. Wait, no, since sliced bread. The Stata center was dubbed some of the hottest campus architecture in the country. Yes, and the Yugo was an affordable car for every American. Yet I don't think it's a present day phenomenon. I remember reading that architects, wanting to distance themselves from contractors and builders during the first few decades of the 20th century, defined themselves as an ‘elite caste of builders,' and were not interested in designing for the new middle class, preferring to link their professional identity to large-scale monumental commissions requiring wealthy patrons. Hence, architecture became a luxury rather than a service - and the prestige and social standing that came from being an architect meant distancing oneself from others, further removing an architect from most new construction, and leading up to that 20% statistic I mentioned earlier. Another thing I've constantly noticed, is that architects tend to get incredibly caught up in describing their own projects in the most exalting of ways, frequently even using language that does nothing but confuse the subject at hand. This, again, is an effort to distance the architectural ‘aristocracy’ from the common person, since obviously people are not meant to understand the complex logic that goes into a design. For example, Bofill himself does a wonderful job of explaining his own design for the Belvedere St. Christophe complex: ‘The elements are geometrically assembled with a classical theatrical opulence that evokes the magical sacralization of a democratic urban space’ – the type of architectural language that, in my opinion, marks a man more interested in the impression that his structures will leave on others rather than the effects of the very people who will live in it. Look at most architect's websites or any of their self-published works. You'll find such an overabundance of designers just...waxing poetic over their constructs - every project they've EVER done has (let's take some words here) 'brilliant conceptual clarity,' 'incredibly organized aesthetic,' etc. I could describe a simple plastic chair in such a manner to make it seem like a gilded throne – but it remains a plastic chair. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion - but I also want to get it straight that I'm not attempting to bash their designs. Not at all. Merely the way they describe them - in language only a designer could understand. Even then, barely!

This type of disregard for the common person is the topic that really interests me. My entire modus operandi has always been about achieving some sort of change, or making a difference, minor as it may be. Maybe it's too idealistic. There’s no need to separate classes or problems. However unsuccessfully an attempt at changing the profession’s stance as a whole might go, it should still be attempted on the grounds that the issues of millions far supersede the whimsical ambitions of any one designer. An architect simply cannot impose his/her own concepts on a population because he/she believes they are the way to resolve an issue. Architects should not distance themselves from the issues, or believe they are above such concerns – for they have placed their profession on an incredible pedestal, and one that might be too difficult to descend.

Heck, I recently found myself struggling to find my identity as an architect. I feel as if I might end up a builder instead of an architect. It's my long-standing fight against 'cutesy' architecture - design done for the sake of design - just to prove a point and say, "Look what I can do!" like the character from MadTV. Not as if I'm strictly function over form, I don't want to get too carried away and be labeled a minimalist. Resolve the issues at hand, and then focus on aesthetics. I bet you didn't know I was such a theorist.

In any case, I've blabbed for way too long on this. Good thing I have no homework - shoot, I should end on some sort of lighter note, since this probably has you all saying, "...Why...so...serious?"

(felt this was appropriate, since every accident I see in Miami during a rainy day seems to be a woman's fault...)

...Ehhh, blasted whippersnappers

So I was in the midst of my TAing today when the professor is giving a lecture about isometric, axonometric, and oblique projection drawings, when she posed the question as to why the angles mainly used in such drawings were 30, 45, and 60. The adjunct professor there said it was an obvious answer - one student replied, "...Because that's how our triangles are like?" The adjunct prof replied, "Yes, but there are adjustable triangles..." To which this one student in front of me replied, "Man, I can't afford those, I'm from Hialeah."

Pause.

Word? So not only did we just put down an entire city and culture, but we damn near opened our mouth to say a smart remark. There was some scattered laughter to his remark from his group. Then I was about to say something when I realized - "OH SHI-" I would've said something very similar back in my freshman year. Back as a freshie I was a loudmouth, I ALWAYS had something to say to my Professor. Those in my studio will know this. I could never just accept what they had to say, I always had to have a retort, glib remark, or witty comeback. So how could I possibly call this one kid out for acting exactly how I would've back in the day? I mean, he'll learn his lesson eventually - that he should keep his trap shut - I mean, it took me a while, and even then, depending on who the Professor is, I'd still be able to get a word in edgewise - but there's a time and place for everything, I came to realize. I felt like TJ in that one episode of Recess where he was principal for a day - saw himself in someone else for a moment and realized how times had changed. I realized that five years had gone by. Everyone came out different from college as to how they started. So I decided against telling him to keep his trap shut. Let him have his fun for now - eventually, he'll mature like all of us did in our 'higher education' - and change by himself. We're only young and upstart once.

...although, if he tries to have some witty remark on me, he'll get his comeuppance. I'm not even joking. I'll style on him in front of his peers. He might have to call the:

But in any case - one last note. There's one phenomenon that never ceases to amaze me - but I've heard it a few times in the past few months (albeit, not directed at me, of course) - and it's women who love to say that, "Guys ain't shit" or "There's no good men left out there." Often it is because for some reason or another (not removing the blame from the male side though, if it truly was our fault) - we did some shit to you that you didn't like, so on and so forth, and now she's out tellin her girls or anyone who will listen that, well, 'guys ain't shit.' Her theorem is that, due to the unscrupulous behavior of one dude, that the entire contingent of men on this Earth must therefore also be the same. Of course, though, maybe it wasn't just one guy in her particular case, but maybe two, three, four, et cetera; that have done her wrong. So automatically, once she has enough, it's the whole 'no good men left' rant. Pause for a second though, woman. Did you ever think that maybe...it's you? Like what is it about you...that maybe attracts men who ain't shit? Or maybe you're just attracted to questionable characters? I mean, I'm not going to be hypocritical - I myself have done some messed up shit in my lifetime. I have been called all sorts of 'adjectives,' 'expletives,' and 'nouns.' I have caused a few of the opposite sex to say what I'm now trying to discourage women from saying. So I'm not trying to say that occasionally (def not all the time - sometimes the female acts up) we men aren't to blame for our antics. But chill. So you just got styled on - move on. And if it keeps happening to you - if you fall into that same situation over and over again - there comes a certain point where you have to realize that it is indeed something about you. When you fry something and you burn it - it doesn't take 10 burned meal attempts for you to keep blaming the stove - "Oh the stove gets too hot, to hell with cooking, I'm getting chinese." Noooo. You just can't cook.

...On the flip side, have you ever heard any self-respecting (emphasis on that last word - there's a lot of male bitch-azz-ery nowadays) guy state, "Oh that bish styled on me, so I'm giving up on women." Maaaaaaan, if I ran into a male like that, that's two quick fisticuffs to the left and right face to knock some sense into him. Gotta be kidding me.

(I'm going to end on the note that I have done the above. I just wanted the chair. She misread me all on her own.)

This needs to be said.

So before I get into the main point of my writing tonight, I wanted to share a story I read today that left me impressed with the moral caliber of these kids and coaches: Rivals Allow Touchdown to... Quite an interesting tidbit around all the rampant running-up-the-score and lack of sportsmanship that happens these days. In any case...on to business.

With the help of my good friend Velociholmes,

I've been able to perform an investigation into a much unappreciated facet of women in today's world. I remember that I used (well, still do) to say that the woman I'm going to marry is going to tell me exactly why curves on highways are sloped - and I don't just want her to say "because cars will fly off otherwise" - I want the full explanation. But now I'm ready to add another pre-requisite (apart from being able to cook - ::shrug:: It's the truth) - she must love sports. But then again, let me narrow it down to either football, soccer, basketball, or baseball. If she's into pro-league badminton, then no. That doesn't count in my book. And you care about  my book - well, sort of - or else you wouldn't be reading this. This recently came to mind having met a few women who were particularly into their teams (you know who you are) - and I began thinking about all the ones I knew, and I realized - it's a rare trait. Now, of course, there are varying degrees of passion for the game, which I will enumerate in some detail.

1. The Indifferent Broad

Ah, of course. We've all met one or two at a point in our lives. The one who really, for all practical purposes, could care less about anything having to do with a sport - or getting dirty - or anything like that. The one who, not even to make her man happy, will even sit and watch a game with him, but will be off doing some complaining, shopping, sewing, or whatever women do in their spare time. This one must truly have some exquisitely redeeming quality to merit a long-term commitment, and I will boldly say that however awesome the sex may or may not be, it would never make up for a woman who would walk into the room, see you watching Sunday football or weekday night baseball, make a pissy face and a groan, and remind you that the kitchen cabinet needs to be fixed. She'll say she doesn't need to know sports. I'll say she better know how to make a mean filet mignon. And even then, she's on probation already.

2. The Bless-her-she's-Trying Girl

Yes, she's cute. Intelligent. Wants to make you happy, and will sit down with you whenever you are watching sports and try to enjoy the game along with you, despite having a very basic knowledge of the workings of the game you are watching. She'll ask plenty of questions, which one should have no problem in answering. After all, she can be taught. But she'll confuse a sport or two every now and then - "Did Joe Montana win the Golden Gloves? When did the Knicks win the Stanley Cup? Wait, this isn't Pokemon?" These can easily move up the ladder within a few months to a year, because she is making the effort to make you happy. A definite prospect - a project, so to say. A slight variant of this type is the one who only enjoys sports for you, or to try to impress you; but doesn't really make the effort to advance her knowledge. She's a reluctant one - who will try to get on your nerves when your team does poorly and support you when your team does well.

3. The Sports Fan only for the sake of being a Sports Fan Female

This is one of the more widespread subspecies (yes, I used the word subspecies - big whoop, wanna fightaboutit?) available currently on the market. She has a basic knowledge of the game, and also has a team or two that she represents - whether because she grew up in that city, attended that particular school, or had friends/parents who steered her in that direction. She's fiercely vocal about her teams, downright belligerent when it comes to having a conversation about these (most oftenly found from Boston or New York - go figure) - and also a relentless blabbermouth during games, opening her mouth (giggidy) even though she might be clearly wrong. "OH THAT WAS NOT PASS INTERFERENCE!" "FOUL?! THAT WASNT A FOUL?" - and then of course, who always talks about her team whenever she can despite not being able to recite an ounce of history about it. This is very prevalent for collegiate fans. But her lack knowledge of the game means she really can't be taken seriously. Anyone can don a jersey, name some superstars, and get excited when there's a long touchdown or a Grand Slam. I'm not impressed. This type is also hard to revert to another type.

4. The Perfect Wife/Girlfriend

These are keepers. These have an expanded knowledge of the game and of the history of it - whether solely of their team or of the entire sport in itself. While not fully fluent in the rules and regulations or all the players and teams, she is very passionate and well-versed - who will bring up debates and discussions with excellent points, and not simply loud hyperbole. She knows her rivalries, and can even give a basic analysis of what's going on, i.e., "the offensive line isn't giving the quarterback enough time" or "that was a sweet pick on that drive to the basket" or even "I prefer the 3-4-3 over the 2-4-4 formation." These are also seemingly blessed with the ability to do every thing that makes you realize, "Damn, I better hold on to her - she'll bring me a sandwich AND comment on the defensive fronts the [Colts] are running?" Of course in return, you do treat her right. They're firey when need to be, accept defeat well, know when to brag and when not to brag.

5. The Dream Woman

I say this because, for my part, I've realized that they seem to inevitably come with some sort of undeniable flaw that prevents them from being ideal companions. Too messy. Questionable reputation. Completely unknowledgeable in the kitchen. Turrrrible in the sack. No intelligence or common sense. So they continue to be only available in dreams. But in any case, they have a thoroughly detailed understanding of the traditions of the sport and are well-versed in tactics - questioning why the Eagles are lined up in the nickel formation, Cover 1 with a rookie safety against the Saints five-wide shotgun spread and their star QB, Drew Brees, who was only 16 yards shy last year of breaking Dan Marino's 1984 record for passing yards. These can watch a game with unbridled intensity and a deep understanding and ability to analyze. Watching a game of any sport with one of these is a real treat, adding to the experience. An incredibly rare find, but one that, again, will usually have some sort of catch that will make her remain a friend.

...there are some slight variations, though. Again, I want to sum it up by saying that a woman who loves sports is an incredible catch (as long as Darrelle Revis isn't involved - see? One of you might just get that) as a friend, acquaintance, or maybe even something more. Bless you females out there with this skill. You're unappreciated.

...and as for you who don't care much for any sport, maaaaan, I hope you are either a genius with a deep mind and ambition, a professional chef, or something like that. Might end up lonely with 40 cats (all asking for cheezburgers) in your old age! And so I leave you once again, but this time with the deep thoughts of Velociholmes distant relative, the Philosoraptor.