Just for the heck of it...

I know I'm a few months late on this, but in case you missed it, like I did, Foxy Brown was in some trouble.





Ridiculous. Thoroughly.

Blink

"I'm back like cooked crack, Yep!"
- Juelz Sanana

That's right. For those who missed me, I'm back. It's been a busy couple of weeks, what with my starting a new job and everything. I've had a lot on my mind, but I've been thoroughly exhausted, and so I haven't had much time to blog.

I just finished reading Blink: The Power Of Thinking Without Thinking, by Malcolm Gladwell. For those that know me, I don't read often. I chose this book, however, because I read an article by Bill Simmons "about" Gladwell. In the article, Simmons and Gladwell e-mailed back and forth for a period of time, discussing a bunch of different sports-related topics. It was Gladwell's responses to the topics that really caught my interest: for instance, "people think that Tiger Woods is tougher than Phil Mickelson because he works harder, but Tiger Woods is tougher than Phil Mickelson, and because of that he works harder."

It's statements like that, an alternate way of looking at things, that truly intrigues me. Which is why I enjoyed Blink so much. It was all about looking at things from a different perspective, and your mind playing tricks on you, in a sense. The book discusses what Gladwell calls "thin slicing," which is when our mind makes decisions based on very small bits of information, usually generated upon first impressions. Gladwell contends that our subconscious knows a lot more than we give it credit for, and if we learned to control our subconscious thoughts, and trust our instincts more, we would be able to recognize a lot of things that are hidden in everyday life.

He makes his point through examples of a man who can tell, with 95% certainty, by a 3 minute conversation between a couple if their marriage will last for the next 15 years, a gambling experiment where drawing a certain card would cost you to lose money, an army general who took on the entire U.S. amry in a war game and won, the Amadou Diallo murder, and countless other examples. It's really a wonderfully engaging read. If you're a fan of intelligent books, and just using you mind and finding new ways of thinking, i urge you to pick this book up (or at the very least, hit up the library like i did).

One thing Gladwell points out, that has definitely changed my perception of what I currently do for a living (advertising), was that, in the 1980's, Coca-Cola was losing market shares to Pepsi and decided that, because of blind taste tests, people liked Pepsi better. So they devised a product called "New Coke", which failed miserably. As it turned out, Pepsi tasted better with an initial sip, but not through a whole can. Not to mention, so much stock is put in the name of Coke, that many people just like the taste because it's a household name. Now, I know some of you are thinking that you already knew this. Sure, we al know a ton of people drink Coke because it's Coke, but one thing that Gladwell brings up is the psychological aspect behind it, that it's not just that Coke tastes better, but that the sight of the Coke label can make the product taste better because we expect more from Coke.

To me this is fascinating. Psychology is something I've always been interested in, how the brain works, etc., and this is right up my alley. I mean, just look at the title of my blog. Thought is something I'm incredibly interested in, and here Gladwell presents us with an entire book on the subject.

Anyway, I'm done babbling. Pick up the book for yourself and see what I mean.

More to come after lunch.

Barry Bonds

A few days ago, an article broke about a book written on Barry Bonds and his suspected steroid use. This book apparently claims that Bonds used not only previously undetectable designer steroids, but also insulin, human growth hormone, and winstrol, a steroid currently associated with Rafael Palmeiro. The book claims that from 1998-2004, Bonds was using these supplements in order to get a leg up on the competition.

Now, personally, I don't need a book to tell me Barry Bonds used steroids. I've seen the ridiculous growth he's had in recent years. I've watched as he sat out much of the 2005 season for injuries, the same season where the harsh punishments for steroid use was put into place, and I've seen an incredible swell in his stats. For those that know baseball, if a player hits 40 home runs in one season three times in the first fourteen seasons of his career (topping out at 46), and then in conescutive seasons hits 49, 73, 46 and 45 home runs, at the ages of 36, 37, 38 and 39, respectively, while in each season having fewer at-bats (opportunities to hit home runs) than in all but three of the fourteen seasons prior, well, let's just say there's something fishy about that. Granted, it doesn't all come from steroid use. Bonds has a much better understanding of the game than he did in those first fourteen seasons, a better eye, and is a more feared player. As well, the San Francisco Giants built a stadium specifically for him, with a closer right field wall in an area where the ball is more likely to travel farther when hit well. Do these factors alone account for the sudden and drastic change in Bonds' numbers? I don't believe they do. I, personally, believe that he used supplements.

ESPN's Michael Smith believes he did as well. However, on today's Around the Horn, Smith, in my mind, put this argument to rest. You can't punish Bonds for what he may have done, since there were no rules governing steroid use in baseball (law governing it in the U.S. is a different story, and the California District Attorney's office can follow up accordingly, if they like). The fact remains that, Bonds was not alone in this, you can't, as J.A. Adande put it, "posthumously strip Ken Caminiti of his 1996 NL MVP, so how can you punish Bonds?" As Smith put it, if you take away Bonds' home runs, what's next? Lowering pitchers ERA's? Giving wins to teams who were beat by a Bonds home run? It's impossible to really tell the implications this could have. Not to mention the fact that if Bonds gets an asterik, then should you give asteriks to Mark McGwire? Sammy Sosa? Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson since they played in an era where some of the best baseball players weren't allowed to compete because they were black? Should Cy Young no longer have an award named after him since Satchel Paige could have easily won as many games if he was allowed to play major league ball?

Now, personally, I don't want Bonds to have an asterik next to his records. I don't want him to break Hank Aaron's home run record, or Babe Ruth's, for that matter, but he will, and there's nothing I can do about it. I just want it to be acknowledged that clearly the man had some help. And I think a reason so many people are in an uproar over Bonds is because of the villanous attitude he is perceived to have, for which, he is largely to blame. He has made it clear that he wants to break Babe's record, mainly because Babe is white. That has nothing to do with my distaste for Bonds, but I can bet that it has a lot to do with why much of America hates him. Personally, my distaste with Bonds lies more in his lack of humility, not to mention the fact that I feel much of his career he has been overrated. Now, his overall stats are impressive (though currently are under scrutiny), but I feel like if in 1999 he wasn't named to the All-Century team (50 best players ever), then he shouldn't be considered the best ever, let alone top 5, currently, just because he hit 73 home runs in a season or walks 200 times a year. That says more about the scope of baseball today than it does about Bonds.

Any thoughts?

Just saw a ridiculous commercial, part 2:

Asian Sensations treats


"Everyday Asian for any Occasion!"



Are people getting fired for these?

The Oscars

I know it's a bit late to be posting on the Oscars, but I've had an odd few days, where in the span of 24 hours I worked 12 hours at my job, and then, 12 hours later, proceeded to be offered a new job at an advertising company, which I promptly took. I've been kind of all over the place, and so I haven't really taken the time to post. And on to the post!

1. Watching the Oscars really just reminded me of why it is I don't watch the Oscars in the first place. It was pretty boring, and having not seen 90% of the movies up for awards, I really had no vesting interest in the awards whatsoever.
2. The performances were horrible. The only highlight came with the unintentional comedy of the song from Crash, and the subsequent rehashing of the movie in the background, burning car complete. Was it wrong that I half expected the flaming wreck in the back to explode and just ruin the Oscars? I have issues.
3. Academy Award Winners Juicy J, DJ Paul, and the rest of Three 6 Mafia. 'Nuff said.
4. Crash was, in my opinion, wholelly overrated. Sure, there was a star studded cast. Sure, it was about time Hollywood addressed racial issues with vigor. But as Bill Simmons said in his post-Oscar article, "at any point did you ever think, 'Wow, I'm watching the 2005 Oscar winner right now'?" Personally, I wasn't impressed by the movie, though I thought there were some very well written and very well done parts. It just wasn't best picture material to me. And if I offend anyone (as I seem to do whenever I go against popular opinion), I'm sorry.

That's really it. I wasn't impressed by the show, by the awards, by anything really. I thought John Stewart did a pretty good job as host, but his humor is clearly over the head of Hollywood. And it's a shame really. But I suppose it's better that way. I really only watched the Oscars because John Stewart was hosting (and because there was nothing else on TV), and so better he doesn't host again so I don't have to watch again.

Just saw a ridiculous commercial:

http://www.lipodissolve.com/

"...it doesn't suck."



Wow.