Bob Bradley?

I realize I’m a little bit late on this, but I thought I should weigh in on Bob Bradley’s tenure as the coach of the US men’s national team. In the wake of the US’s 4-2 loss to Mexico in the Gold Cup final (the second straight loss to Mexico in the US after an 11-game winning streak), in addition to the loss to Panama in the group stage (the Americans’ first ever loss in Gold Cup group play), Bradley’s job came into question, prompting Sunil Gulati, the head of US Soccer, to—tacitly and ambiguously—issue a statement (http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/u-s-soccer-releases-open-letter-to-fans/) of support.

Recent articles (http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/in-bob-we-trust/) about Bradley mainly focused on the fact that any coach would still have the same (limited) player pool to work with. While this is absolutely true, it misses the most important fact about the US team’s play over the last few years: they have been incredibly inconsistent. They alternate great performances with mediocre ones. They follow lackluster halves with an inspired 45 minutes. Some days they can beat the best in the world, other days they look like chumps against some lowly CONCACAF team.

One of the biggest problems the US has is with giving up goals early in matches. Of the Americans’ 31 games (friendlies excepted) from 2009 to present, opponents scored against them in the first 20 minutes 14 times. That’s a lot, particularly for a team that boasts at its back end arguably one of the ten best keepers in the world (Tim Howard). But look at the specific opponents who are scoring so early in matches. Among them are Brazil, England, Ghana, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama. Some teams that did not score early: Trinidad, Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, Italy, Brazil (Confederations Cup final) and FUCKING SPAIN.

See what I mean about inconsistent? The fact that the US can give up a quick and easy goal to Honduras and not three weeks later shut out Spain goes to show that they might have trouble focusing at the beginning of matches. The thing is, getting a team mentally ready for games may be the coach’s number one job. If Bradley can’t get everyone focused and the defense organized, he’s probably not going to get the best performances out of his players.

Likewise, the US keeps blowing leads. Case in point, the 4-2 loss to Mexico in the Gold Cup. Up 2-0 after 22 minutes, they proceeded to give up four goals, the first in the 29th minute. At no point did Bradley make any tactical changes to help the team defend better. In fact, he made no real changes until he brought on an extra attacker in the 62nd minute. Now, admittedly the US was outplayed for much of the match and both of their goals came against the run of play. But that’s all the more reason to preserve the lead once you have it. The Mexicans were clearly the better team, but when the US got that second goal they were in the position to sneak out of there with a win. As a midlevel team, the US needs to be able to steal some wins from more talented sides. Instead, they pissed away a two-goal lead by not changing their strategy to focus on defense.

Losses like this to a point fall at Bradley’s feet. While any coach would have the same personnel to work with, Bradley’s inability to elicit consistent performances from his players and make productive in-game changes is a sign that he’s not the best coach for the job. If getting his players mentally prepared for games is a coach’s number one responsibility, managing the game is in the top five; if Bradley has problems with both of these, it becomes clear that a change needs to be made.

This is not to say that Bradley is bad coach. He’s done a very good job incorporating players into the national team pool and bringing along young players. Also, he’s made some very difficult lineup decisions and had them work out pretty well (namely Freddy Adu at the Gold Cup and Charlie Davies in the Confederations Cup). And his game plans tend to be very good; the defensive scheme that beat Spain in 2009 was copied by none other than Jose Mourinho to beat Barcelona in the 2010 Champions League semifinals.

But the results for the US team—limited though the sample size may be—are not where perhaps they should be. Speaking of the Mexico game, I don’t think they’re better than Mexico (as much as it pains me to say that), but they are good enough to hold a two-goal lead, or at least not give up four straight goals to their biggest rivals. In many ways, a 2-1 loss where the US never led would be much more palatable than how the game actually went down. The way it stands, the US appears good enough to take a lead against the run of play, but not good enough to hold that lead.* And maybe that’s the case. But it seems more likely that some better, more proactive in-game managing could have focused on defense and held that lead. The coach needs to recognize how the game is progressing and make the necessary adjustments before the game is out of hand. Bradley, while not horrible at in-game management, is not great, either.

But that’s more a comment on Bradley’s skill as a strategist, rather than as motivator, which is where his biggest shortcomings lie. He seems incapable—recently, in particular—of getting the team to perform consistently up to their abilities. Though this is perhaps the result of having such an unusually long tenure as head coach,** that’s all the more reason for Gulati to make a change. But why Bradley is having these problems matters little; if the US continues to underachieve and play so inconsistently, especially against CONCACAF opponents, a poor showing in Brazil in 2014 becomes all the more likely. (We’ll not even mention the unthinkable—not qualifying for the World Cup—which, it should be said, is not impossible.)


* The injury to Steve Cherundolo in the 11th minute certainly didn’t help matters. It’s arguable that having to bring on Jonathan Bornstein to replace him essentially led to Mexico’s victory, especially since Bornstein is a much less capable defender and was victimized repeatedly by the Mexican attack. The thing is, though, injuries happen, and the coach picks the roster; it was Bradley who selected a backup left back who’s a defensive liability. That Bornstein was on the roster at all, rather than a more capable defender, is entirely Bradley’s fault.

** International coaches very rarely serve for more than one whole World Cup cycle at a time, three-four years at most. Coaches who stay on longer, such as Raymond Domenech of France, tend to have been quite successful in their first tournament, such as Domenech, and tend to be much less successful the second time around, such as Domenech.

Rearranging the NHL

While all of Canada celebrates the return of the NHL to Winnipeg, where it will surely be a proud and successful franchise, at least until the Canadian dollar weakens and the clubs moves to the exciting, burgeoning hockey market of Jacksonville (y’know, 2018), I decided to write something about it. Why? Because I’m bored and am putting off working on my dissertation, plus I haven’t updated my blog in two years (WHAT?) and figured it was about time I wrote anything non-academic. But I’m not writing about the Thrashers or Winnipeg or Gary Bettman’s staggering incompetence. No, I’m writing about what really matters in all of this: will the Red Wings move to the Eastern Conference?

The Red Wings themselves are all for this; they are one of two (Columbus) Western teams in the Eastern time zone, and their travel load would be greatly decreased if they played Toronto and Pittsburgh four times a year, rather than LA and Vancouver. How much would it make a difference? Outside of the Central Division and Minnesota (and Winnipeg), every Western Conference city is farther away from Detroit than Miami, the farthest city in the East. (Dallas and Denver are about the same distance as Miami). The distance adds up, especially in the playoffs. A seven-game series at Philadelphia would involve 2,658 total miles of travel; seven games against Phoenix would top 10,000 miles, not to mention cover three time zones.

Another bonus for the Red Wings is that the East is kinda shitty. And that’s not just my opinion. Ask Pierre LeBrun, the only guy on the Hotstove with half a brain. I’m not saying the Red Wings would dominate or make the Cup Finals every year, but their playoff path would be easier. They would certainly have won many more President’s Trophies if they’d been playing in the East. (I do realize these things are cyclical, and I’m not silly enough to think the East will forever be inferior. As I often say to my AL East friends, collective quality is always in flux. But the West has been better since the lockout, and that doesn’t really appear to be changing. But this a matter for another blog post.)

So the Red Wings’ brain trust wants to move to the East, and I’ll believe that it’s a good hockey move, as they’re much smarter than me (except about Marian Hossa). But how would such a move work? Where would the Red Wings play?

It has been noted by some that putting Detroit in the East would rekindle old Original Six rivalries against Toronto, Montreal, Boston and New York. This argument does nothing for me. While the Original Six as an idea still has some meaning, it’s been almost 50 years since that era. And yes, important Red Wings-Canadiens games could be hyped as a continuation of the battles of Howe and Richard. But it’s not like the Red Wings had illustrious rivalries with the Bruins or the Rangers (and Toronto doesn’t play in important games), and they haven’t been in the same conference as Montreal since 1981. Further to the point, hockey breeds rivalries. History matters, of course, but you force any two good teams to play eight games a year and perhaps seven more in the playoffs and they’ll start to hate each other. The Red Wings never had any history with the Avalanche or the Ducks, and all their history with the Blackhawks couldn’t make games against them from 1998 to 2008 interesting.

But some rivalries are important and are worth preserving. The Blackhawks, except for a brief gap from 1970 to 1974, have always played in the same conference as the Red Wings, and Wings-Hawks games, even at their absolute nadir, feel more important than games against the Wild or the Flames.(1) So if the Red Wings do move to the East, they would lose that, to say nothing of the Blues, who, as I was informed when living in St Louis, also have a huge rivalry with the Red Wings. (I was unaware.)

So where to put them? Simply switching them with the Thrashers is the simplest solution, but there is absolutely no other reason to put the Red Wings in the Southeast. So that leaves the Northeast or the Atlantic. Travel-wise, the Atlantic makes the most sense. Even though Toronto seems like clearly the closest Eastern city, it is 206 miles away from Detroit, and Pittsburgh is 205 miles away. And New York, home to three of the divisions’ five teams (way to spread them out, Gary!) is only 500 miles, or half the distance of a Proclaimers song. But if the Red Wings join the division, who leaves for the Southeast? Pittsburgh can’t go, because without it there’s no geographic link for the Red Wings. And if Pittsburgh stays Philadelphia has to, because that is another rivalry worth keeping. And it makes no sense to have two New York teams in one division and the other playing somewhere else (even if lack of sense never stopped the NHL), but moving a New York team to the Southeast helps no one.

The Northeast provides a better fit for the Red Wings, who would get to play three other Original Six teams, and only Boston is outside the Great Lakes/St Lawrence region. Except by that criteria, it makes sense for Boston to be the team to leave, which breaks up the Habs-Bruins rivalry and lessens the Original Six element. That leaves Buffalo, which would allow Detroit, Toronto, Montreal and Boston to get the ol’-time hockey band back together, and keeps Ottawa in its rightful place as the red-headed stepchild. As to the Toronto-Buffalo rivalry: really, who cares?

(Just kidding. Rivalries by proximity have more going for them than rivalries based simply on teams hating each other. The White Sox and the Cubs had a plenty healthy rivalry, even when they hadn’t played each other for 90 years. Toronto and Buffalo are too close to not be rivals, plus they’d still be in the same conference, so they’d play four times a year instead of eight. Big loss.)

So Buffalo it is? Well, no. Buffalo and Miami in the same division doesn’t make a lot of sense,(2) and someone still has to join the Southeast, which brings us back to the same problem with moving Detroit to the Atlantic. None of these options is particularly good, and I like Detroit in the Central.

Enter Nashville. As I’m sure many of you have already noticed, a team in Nashville playing in the Southeast division is far too logical for the NHL. So Nashville moves to the Southeast and the Northeast and Atlantic stay the same. Good.

But who joins the Central? Minnesota and Winnipeg make sense as rivals, and as a newly arrived team, it would help the pseudo-Thrashers to have them play more games against each other. Plus keeping Minnesota, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton together just feels right. So that leaves Dallas for the Central? That kinda ruins the close-knit, Great-Lakes-plus-Nashville thing the Central had going. Colorado? In and of itself I guess that makes sense, except keeping Dallas in the Pacific (1400 miles to San Jose) is pretty stupid.

The whole thing is pretty much a logistical nightmare. You want divisions that make sense geographically, if not culturally, while preserving—strengthening, if possible—important, meaningful rivalries. It’s tricky. That’s why it calls for some seriously radical thinking. And I think that with a little rearranging, we can figure this out while solving some of the NHL’s other problems.

First, why stop with Atlanta? There is absolutely, positively, no reason why there should be more professional hockey teams in the New York area than any other sport. Yes, people love hockey in New York, and by sheer numbers there are just as many hockey fans there as in all the Prairies combined.(3) But three hockey teams (it was four before Hartford moved) that close together is just too many. Two is a good number, so one needs to move somewhere else. The Rangers are too established, with too much history to move, while people in Jersey really love the Devils. So I present to you, by process of elimination, your four-time Stanley Cup champion Kansas City Islanders. As much as it hurts moving a team with such considerable past glories, all New York teams have multiple Cups, and New Yorkers really love the Rangers. (It’s kind of surprising.)

Why Kansas City? Although I think Quebec should have a team, Kansas City is bigger with a better corporate base for supporting a team. (The Assemblée nationale is not a corporate base, though it comes close.) Also, unlike Phoenix or Atlanta, Kansas City is not exactly Sunbelt. Hockey is already pretty big in the region, and is well-established in St Louis, Dallas and Denver, which surround Kansas City. Plus they already have an NHL-ready building.

But moving the Islanders doesn’t take care of everything, and it still leads to more realignment issues. So, with that in mind, I give you the Houston Panthers. Look, the Florida Panthers have been going downhill since the 96 Finals, and they just need a new start. They suck, no one comes to their games, and at any rate sports fans in Miami are shit. You know it, I know it, it is what it is. And while Houston is very much the Sunbelt, it’s a huge city with cadres of rich, crazy oilmen. And we all know what they’re like:


You’re telling me you wouldn’t want luxury boxes full of these guys?

That leaves us with some pretty sensible divisions:

Eastern Conference
Northeast: Montreal, Boston, Ottawa, New York, New Jersey

Central: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, Buffalo, Columbus

Red State: Tampa, Carolina, Nashville, Dallas, Houston

Western Conference:
Middle: Detroit, Kansas City, St Louis, Chicago, Toronto

Seasonal Affective Disorder: Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Minnesota, Colorado

Pacific: Vancouver, San Jose, LA, Anaheim, Phoenix


These divisions make sense regionally, while keeping basically all the important rivalries together (and putting Pittsburgh and Washington together, which needed to happen already).(4) And while it still has two Eastern-time teams in the West (switching Toronto and Columbus), it adds three Central-time teams to the East, so at least the travel will be a little more balanced.(5) And while that’s pretty good, it could be even better (especially if we add just a couple more teams):

Eastern Conference:
Original Four: Montreal, Detroit, Toronto, Chicago

East Coast Assholes: New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Boston

Shit Kickers: Carolina, Nashville, Dallas, Houston

I’ve Been Through There: Pittsburgh, Columbus, Kansas City, Buffalo

Western conference:
I Like to Get High and Go Snowboarding: Vancouver, Colorado, San Jose, Seattle

Tanned Assholes: LA, Anaheim, Phoenix, Tampa

Seasonal Affective Disorder: Edmonton, Calgary, Minnesota, Winnipeg

Capital Cities and St Louis: Ottawa, Washington, Quebec, St Louis


I like it. I like it a lot. You know where to find me, Gary. My consulting fee is very reasonable.


(1) We should also bear in mind that these kind of historical rivalries mean much more to us fans than to the players, who—rightfully—care more about who they’re playing now. Some 24-year-old from Burnaby doesn’t really give a shit about Gordie Howe vs. Bobby Hull, but he hates that asshole on the Kings who speared him the last time they played.

(2) Well, unless you’re the NFL, but then you’d have chronic low-level brain damage. (And I’m just talking about the executives.)

(3) Don’t scoff, Canadians. The entire population of Alberta, Saskatchewan (spelled correctly on the first try, without looking it up) and Manitoba is about 5.7 million, while the New York area is 20 million. Even if only one in four people in New York like hockey (a reasonable estimation) and 90% of the Prairies do, that’s about 5 million each.

(4) Possible exceptions are Vancouver-Calgary and Montreal-Toronto-Ottawa. For the former, they’re still in the same conference, and putting Calgary with the other mountain/prairie teams just makes sense (ditto for Vancouver and the West Coast teams). As for the latter, it was tough keeping Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal together while still retaining Boston-Montreal, and, though I’ve conflicting reports from Habs fans, Boston seems like a more important rivalry than Toronto. And though Toronto and Ottawa have a nice mediocrity thing going on, keeping that together really wasn’t a priority.

(5) The biggest distance in the West with this plan, Toronto-LA, is 2100 miles, while it’s 1600 miles between Houston and Montreal. That’s better than the current distance ratio, which is still 2100 miles for the West (Columbus-Vancouver) but only 1400 miles for the East (Montreal-Miami).

A Celebration of Sports Hate

Who wants a nice cold glass of Haterade?

Sports hate is the best kind of hate, and is really the only acceptable kind, because sports hate is pretty much benign. Sure it’s loud and vulgar, and potentially offensive, but is rarely violent (at least in North America, which I have a theory about), unless it involves Red Sox (I’m looking at you, Lavin) or Canadiens fans. Sports hate gives us a venue for us to take our blatantly and blindly partisan love for our team(s) and express it outward (with some exceptions that have nothing to do with our own teams, but are just objectively detestable) in an arena with practically no real-world stakes. And so here is my celebration of sports hate, a list of all the teams I can’t fucking stand and reasons why. If you disagree with this list, you can eat shit and die, because whatever you think is just ignorant. If you agree, good for you; feel free to add more reasons why these following teams can go fuck themselves.

As an outward, negative extension of love for a team, sports hate of course has varying degrees, ranging from out and out, bile-filled hatred (Anaheim Mighty Ducks) to even a slight affinity (Washington Capitals), that can waver over time. The Colorado Avalanche, for instance, would have been at the most reviled extreme of the scale ten years ago, and now I just don’t care, because they suck and don’t matter anymore. The same with the Illinois basketball team. Generally, I just want my teams to finish first, and I don’t care what else happens. It doesn’t matter to me if the Twins or the Royals finish second or third in the AL Central, as long as the Tigers win. That said, I want the White Sox to finish last and the Indians to finish fourth with a run differential of –18,000,000,000, because that’s just how sports hate works. So for the sake of time, I’ve included only those teams which currently turn my schadenfreude knob all the way to 11 (so no Canucks or Miami Heat, though I can’t stand either), in the order in which they come to mind:

Chicago White Sox—There’s objective hate and there’s partisan hate. The White Sox fall squarely into the latter category. To be perfectly honest, if I were from Chicago I’d love the White Sox like nobody’s business. They’re a bunch of assholes, and they play like assholes, and they’re managed by an exquisite asshole, who happens to be hilarious. This is the kind of team for me. But they’re in the AL Central and the Tigers have something like a .100 winning percentage against them in the last six years, and I fucking hate them. They’re the team I look for first on the out-of-town scoreboard, and I legitimately want them to go 0-162. Yes, that’s right, I hate them so much I would willingly give all the other AL Central teams 18 extra wins to spite the White Sox. Well, not Cleveland. Okay, I want them to go 18-144, only because of the embarrassment it would cause Cleveland to get swept by the team that lost every other game. One of my top-five baseball memories ever involves Dean Palmer coming back onto the field after being ejected to get into the second brawl of the game against the White Sox in 2000. That was freaking awesome.

Chicago Cubs—I also hate the Cubs, but for purely objective reasons. I’m tired of hearing about curses and loveable losers from a team that’s simply incompetent, but happens to be located in a big city. I don’t give a shit and I’m tired of it; you suck, go annoy someone else. Also, Cubs fans are whiny, smug, rich, frat-boy assholes and the whole North Side-South Side divide with its severe racial undertones is pretty disgusting. The thing about objective sports hate is that it just can’t measure up to partisan hate, so in order to further hatred for the Cubs, I give you the Brewers’ perspective: http://milwaukee.decider.com/articles/talkin-baseball-why-we-hate-the-cubs,25908/

Cleveland Indians—Pure competitive hatred. It’s pretty clear (at least to me) why I hate the White Sox so much, but I’m not really sure why I hate the Indians like I do but not, say, the Twins. There’s of course the rivalry between them and the Tigers, but like with the Twins, it doesn’t quite explain it. It’s just a gut feeling, which I guess is what sports hate is all about. The Cleveland teams may be one of the few cases of geography influencing my sports hate. Ohio is a shithole, which goes a long way in explaining why it smells as bad as it does. But whatever the reason, I love knowing the Indians, and really all Cleveland teams, no matter how well they play, will blow it in the end. Just love it. Plus Grady Sizemore annoys me and Jhonny [SIC!] Peralta should be on the Typo All-Stars with Dwyane Wade.

Cleveland Cavaliers—Ditto. I hate LeBron James, but only because he fucks up the Pistons. I’d kinda like him otherwise. But again, I love how Cleveland teams choke in the playoffs. When was the last time they won a championship, and had North America separated from Pangea at that point?

Ohio State—Remember this list is in order I think of teams, so I’m rolling with the Ohio sucks theme. While college hoops are much more important to me than football, this includes both their football and basketball teams (it would include hockey, too, but they choke in the playoffs even worse than the other teams). Maybe if Greg Oden had chosen a basketball team with semi-competent coach (like, I don’t know, Michigan State) he would’ve learned how to defend someone in the paint without hacking at their hands. That guy picks up fouls like they’re on sale. I’ll just say this: I don’t like the University of Florida, but I did two years ago. Ditto for Louisiana State.

Wisconsin—The team that ruined Big Ten basketball, giving legitimately talented and exciting teams like Michigan State a bad name. (Shut up, Tim.) They have made a living playing ugly basketball with ugly players (seriously, look at that, as long as you haven’t eaten in the last half-hour and don’t have a heart condition) and losing in the second round of the NCAA Tournament. They’ve mastered the snail’s-pace offense and stand-there-and-be-tall defense, and they win 14 games a year in the Big Ten where that’s legal, and then get smoked everywhere else. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
His name is Brian Butch.

Chicago Bulls—This one, like the Colorado Avalanche, has waned considerably over the years as they got real, real shitty, but I wanted to mention one of my favorite basketball moments ever, which was the end of the 1991 Eastern Conference finals, when Isiah Thomas and Bill Laimbeer walked off the court before the game had ended to avoid shaking hands. Poor sportsmanship? Absolutely. But, as Laimbeer said in an interview in 2007 (!): “I’m glad we didn’t shake their hands. They were a bunch of whiners. Piss on them.” Amazing. (Everybody, including me until I looked this quote up, forgets that Larry Bird did the same thing to the Pistons at the end of the 1988 Eastern finals.)

While it may seem like I’m picking on Chicago in the same way I did Cleveland, I’m really not. I’m quite fond of Chicago, and hate these teams based solely on their own merits. I actually felt good for the Blackhawks this year, though that could all change by this time next year, and just as I hated them (particularly Eddie Belfour) with a passion back in the 90s.

Anaheim Mighty Ducks—Yes I know the name is technically no longer correct, but I don’t want them to forget their beginnings as the ultimate example of a Disney movie marketing tie-in. What a bunch of dirty fucking cheap-shot artists. Chris Pronger headhunts more than the anonymous natives in ol-timey racist cartoons (too soon?), not to mention STEPPING ON OPPOSING PLAYERS with his skates. And I wonder if Sidney Crosby went to the Scott Neidermeyer School for Whining before he joined the NHL. While I hate the White Sox, I can totally understand how someone could cheer for them; I can’t understand how anyone could like the Ducks.
That ain't right.


New York Yankees—These arrogant sons of bitches actually named their spring training facility Legends Field. LEGENDS FIELD! (They did so in 1996, so it’s all traditional and shit.) First, how full of yourself do you have to be to do that? Second, there are no legends in spring training, there are pitch-count limits and split-squad scrimmages. (Actually, that second point isn’t totally true; Alex Rodriguez is a spring training legend. That boy sure can hit in March.) Their arrogance also led them to build a soulless, overpriced new stadium, which pretty much ruined any mystique or home-field advantage they had in their old building, which is kinda funny (see also Centre, Bell; karma; schadenfreude). Anyone who cheers for the Yankees who isn’t from the Bronx, Westchester or Manhattan is a front-runner who needs a good ass-kicking.

Italy—Speaking of arrogant assholes, there’s the Italian soccer team. I hate the way they play, how they get all their goals off of set pieces and fall all over the field in order to get them. I hate their boring, defensive style that sucks all life out of the game. (They’re like the Spurs but way more annoying.) I hate that they may have the most homogenous team in Europe. I LOVED the 2006 Italy-USA World Cup game, where the US held off the future world champions with nine men for the whole second half, and would have won had Brian McBride not been in an offside position on DeMarcus Beasley’s goal. The US was the only team that didn’t lose to Italy in the tournament, so logically they were the second best team in the world. If you too care to feel the hatred, just look at this clip from that game, and tell me you don’t want to take a swing at that guy:


Plus two days ago they beat the US 3-1 with two goals scored by Giuseppe Rossi, who’s actually from fucking New Jersey, and gets to play on the Italian team only because his name is Giuseppe Rossi and he talks with a comical accent. The game also featured some fantastic fouls by the Italians, enough that the Mighty Ducks actually felt ashamed to watch.

Mexico—Not arrogant, just dirty, captained by Rafa “What, I Can’t Kick My Feet Out at Face Level?” Marquez. Dos a cero, mes amigos, dos a cero.


Detroit Lions—Self-hate still counts.

Pittsburgh Penguins—I’ve hated them for years, but I don’t hate them more for winning, cause they wouldn’t have won without the Red Wings’ wonderful generosity in giving them the series. I was impressed with Sidney Crosby’s ability to play with Gary Bettman constantly fellating him.

So that’s about it, those are the teams that pretty much unfailingly get my Irish up (is that racist?). It just occurred to me to include individual players I hate, too, like Chris Pronger or Patrick Roy or Robert “Right Place, Right Time, No Talent” Horry, but that might get a little unwieldy. If you’re wondering where the Celtics are on this list, I really don’t like the Celtics, but they just don’t arouse the requisite amount of vitriol in me to make the list. Fuck them, though. Feel free to agree with me and celebrate the catharsis that is sports hate.

The Red Wings Autopsy

The Autopsy

[As usual for my blog posts, the language gets a little salty. What can I say? I’m pissed off.]

What happened? Seriously. A 2-0 lead? How do you lose that? 42 of the 45 teams ever to take a 2-0 lead in the finals have won. The Detroit Red Wings don’t blow that kind of lead. In the first round, maybe, but not in the finals. That just doesn’t happen. So what happened?

What happened is they blew it. They didn’t get beat, they lost. The Red Wings, when they played like the Red Wings, were the better team in this series. Even when they weren’t playing to their capabilities they were still pretty evenly matched with Pittsburgh. Usually in finals, whether in hockey or basketball (baseball’s too dependent on who’s pitching), if a team is off on a given day, no matter the relative talent level, it’s a blowout. (Think the first four games of the Pistons-Spurs finals. None of them was within 15 points, yet the series went down to the last six minutes or so of game 7.) That just didn’t happen to the Wings, even when they were playing horribly, as in games 4, 6 and 7. The goal differential over the seven games was 17-14 in favor of the Red Wings, and statistically speaking, teams should not get outscored over a series and still win. Now you could argue that the game 5 blowout accounts for the whole disparity, and if the Red Wings had won 3-1 or 4-2 there would be no such disparity, and you’d be right, but that’s not the point. The point is to show just how good the Red Wings are, even when they’re off their game. Remember, game 4 went about as badly for the Red Wings as game 5 did for the Penguins. Both teams were totally out-of-sync and melting down, and both ultimately gave up three goals in under ten minutes in the second period. Yet despite the similarities, the Wings won their game 5-0 and the Penguins only 4-2, and at one point the Wings had a 2-1 lead and what looked at the time like a legitimate chance to completely steal a game they had no business winning. Because the Red Wings don’t get blown out; they’re still in it, even when they’re playing like shit.

Speaking of playing like shit, the question ‘what happened?’ should really be directed towards the last two games, which were complete copies of each other. The Wings were utterly discombobulated for the first two periods, but more than that, they were lackadaisical, and then they turned it on in the third, already down 2-0, to make a game of it. (And it was close, especially in game 7, despite how bad they were. Forget Kronwall’s crossbar in the closing minutes, Cleary accidentally blocking Zetterberg’s clear shot at the end of the second was the bad omen/killer moment for the Wings. If that goes in, they probably win the Cup.) Again, it’s a testament to how good the Wings are that they can take two periods off against the best team in the East and be down only by two. The problem is, they never should have been in that position to begin with. They looked lazy and listless during those four periods, and that’s something that has to be put on Mike Babcock. It’s his job as coach to get the team mentally prepared, and they weren’t. They were completely lacking in urgency and purpose, something absolutely unacceptable in an elimination game in the finals, whether a game 7 or not. Babcock gave an interview the day before game 7 and was asked how he had told the team to prepare, and he said he told them to treat it like a regular game and stick to their routines. And while that’s not bad advice, it kind of misses the point; this wasn’t a regular game. On top of all that, the Wings had been having slow starts the whole series. Seriously, Mike, you didn’t want to address that for game 7?

The thing is, I didn’t think, until game 7 actually started, that they could lose. I thought there was no way the Detroit fucking Red Wings would lose a Stanley Cup in game 7 at the Joe. I know a lot of Wings fan felt that way, as did the media, and it seemed so did the Red Wings themselves. And that’s true: the Detroit Red Wings do not lose a Stanley Cup game 7 at home. The problem was, the team that came out those last two games wasn’t the Detroit Red Wings, it was the Detroit Pistons, ca. 2006 and 2007 playoffs. You know, the team who thought they were better than everyone else and would nap their way through playoff series only to wake up and start playing once it’s too late. The Red Wings seemed to think, especially after game 5, that they had it, that there was no way they could lose to a team that they not only beat the year before, but took their best player in the interim. They thought, like the Pistons, that all they had to do was show up and the Cup was theirs. And we all know how well that worked for the Pistons. (I think, by the way, had they played anyone other than Pittsburgh that they win in five or six. I think the rematch factor and the addition of Hossa lulled the Wings into their false sense of confidence, which wouldn’t have been there against anyone else. Even if they had trailed the Penguins in the series 2-1 or 3-2, there’s no way they lose like they did.)

This brings us to the topic of Maid Marian. If the only Red Wings games you watched all year were in the finals, you could be forgiven for wondering why all the fuss over an unaggressive second-line winger with two assists for the series who’s shaky in his own end and prone to horrendously bad giveaways. It is for these reasons, as well as the fact he never really seemed to fit within the Wings offense (he had a shockingly high number of unassisted goals in the regular season, which shows both a welcome talent for creating turnovers and poor chemistry with teammates), that I don’t think the Wings should keep him. [Ken Holland, if you’re reading (and I know you are), we need defensemen, not overpriced forwards who think forechecking is something offered free by banks to attract new customers (http://www.instantrimshot.com - thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week, be sure to tip your waitress). Do a sign-and-trade or just let him go outright and keep the money; Lebda and Lilja are not the future of the Red Wings blueline, and neither are Lidstrom and Rafalski, for that matter. See if you can’t get Quincey back from the Kings.]

Though as you may have noticed I’m not the world’s biggest fan of Maid Marian, it is unfair to single him out among the Red Wings in this series. Stuart didn’t play like he can, and Holmstrom just looked old and worn out. But again, crapping the bed this badly was a team effort, from the coaching staff down. Case in point: the Penguins’ first goal in game 7 came off a turnover at the side of the Wings’ net by Stuart. Detroit was breaking out, and Stuart was moving the puck from the corner into the middle, which is a break-out play the Wings use all the time, but Malkin jumped the play and stole the puck. Now while Stuart should never let that turnover happen, Malkin had been regularly jumping that play and disrupting their break-outs since at least game 4 (when I first noticed him doing it). So why was Stuart in that position to begin with? Why hadn’t the Wings adjusted their break-outs to something the Penguins (or at least Malkin) weren’t expecting? That’s not Stuart’s fault, that’s on the coaches.

Since this is an autopsy, I’ll declare the cause of death was playoff suicide. They had this series. The problem was they believed they already had it. And that’s why there’s a dead body of a season to be autopsied at all. I disagree with all the Wings fans who say it was a good season despite the loss. No, it wasn’t. And it wasn’t because they lost in the finals, it was because of how they lost. They gave it away. And that’s worse and ultimately much more disheartening as a fan than Michigan State getting smoked by North Carolina, or the Tigers forgetting how to throw after one amazing season, or the Pistons running out of fouls, big men and big men without fouls in the fourth quarter against the Spurs. This is worse. It’s not even like they choked, they just stopped playing. Hopefully this loss will wake the Wings up and get rid of any lingering Piston similarities. They are still the best team in the NHL, and by far the best organization. Chris Osgood was fantastic this spring, and the Wings will be back next year with some minor tweaks, most of them mental. Maybe they’ll face the Penguins in the finals again next year. I’m sure Maid Marian will sign with them over the summer (it only makes sense).

And if they do face Pittsburgh again, maybe Helm (my new favorite Red Wing, by the way, replacing the certain-to-retire Darren McCarty) can clock Sidney Crosby in his stupid fucking face. Seriously, how do you not shake the other team’s captain’s hand? What a prick.

Open Letter to Barack Obama-Iran

[What? Twice in one month? And no talk of sports? Crazy, I know. But I have some strong opinions, particularly when it comes to US foreign policy, and I decided someone should hear them. Then I decided someone with some power should hear them. (A better idea, n'est-ce pas?) So what you have in front of you is an open letter to President-Elect Obama regarding our policy towards Iran. I haven't sent it yet, mainly because I wanted some feedback first, so let me know what you think. (Really. Punctuation and everything.) If it goes well, I might write one about the situation in Georgia, too. Enjoy.]


Mr. President-Elect,

As we speak, the United States faces myriad foreign policy challenges. In order to adequately address those challenges, America must first regain its standing as a just and effective leader on the world stage. That standing has been diminished considerably over the last several years, primarily due to an escalation of the dualist, ‘if you’re not with us you’re against us’ stance which has pervaded American foreign policy over the last few decades. This stance has helped breed the idea that a country which disagrees with us, or whose interests are not identical with our own is necessarily an enemy. Similarly, we have treated other nations as tools of our own policies, and any refusal or dissension on their part has been met with hostility in Washington.

In order to improve our position on the world stage, this attitude must stop immediately. It serves no purpose other than to antagonize other countries and increase tension throughout the world. By making it more difficult to work with other governments, it ultimately makes it more difficult for the United States to pursue its interests internationally. We must understand that every nation has its own agenda and its own interests, and we must acknowledge and attempt to accommodate them before any fruitful compromise on any issue can be reached.

We must bear this in mind particularly in our dealings with Iran. Your statements during the campaign that you would allow meetings with other countries without preconditions go a long way towards the goal of a less self-involved foreign policy, but we cannot let them remain merely statements. The United States must engage with Iran as soon as possible. Whether that engagement takes place at high diplomatic levels or alongside our European allies, we must be committed to working with the Iranians, not against them.

While a hostile approach may be politically expedient here at home, any initial antagonism, or even disengagement on our part would weaken the United States’ position. Iran is allowed, under article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue civilian uses of nuclear energy, and it is within their rights – and potentially their power – to do so. Any attempt by the United States to curtail that right would be perceived both in Iran and in many parts of the world as rank hypocrisy; it would only carry the weight of any accompanying coercive measures – sanctions, a trade embargo, military action – none of which may work. These attempts to force Iran to abandon nuclear energy may well isolate the country and convince the government that nuclear power is an absolute necessity. To put it simply, if the Iranian government definitively decides to pursue a nuclear program, there is little America can do, short of force, to stop them, and any form of compulsion would be politically debilitating for the United States internationally.

The issue, of course, isn’t merely nuclear energy, but also nuclear weapons. While Iran does not have the right under the NPT to nuclear arms, the issue of their potential weapons program is not in reality different from the issue of their development of nuclear energy. Indeed, the same factors apply: if Iran decides to pursue it, only coercive action can dissuade them, though it would be less political strenuous than with nuclear power alone.

The answer, then, is one of political will. It is the United States’ will that Iran absolutely does not acquire nuclear weapons, and if it is indeed Iran’s will to acquire nuclear weapons, then conflict is unavoidable. It is not at all clear, however, that this is Iran’s will.

The best, and perhaps only, possible solution to the matter is one where it is Iran’s will not to pursue nuclear development. For that to happen, we would have to show Iran how that would be in their interest. We must first understand, however, why Iran would want to pursue nuclear weapons at all. It is not, as some believe, to attack the United States or Israel. Any such action would assure Iran’s own destruction. The real reasons are much simpler, and have more to do with Iran itself than with any other country.

Most importantly, there is the matter of prestige, both regionally and internationally. Iran is currently in conflict for regional hegemony with Saudi Arabia on one side and Pakistan on the other. Nuclear weapons would bring Iran level with Pakistan – already a nuclear power – and help it counter Saudi Arabia’s economic advantages. Outside the region, countries with nuclear weapons are a select group worldwide, and developing them would potentially give Iran more clout on the world stage. The recently concluded nuclear deal between India and the United States no doubt caught the Iranians’ attention, and is an example of the advantages nuclear weapons can bring to a country.

Secondly, nuclear weapons would act as a deterrent, particularly towards the United States, against military intervention. As with Pakistan, India and North Korea, the threat of nuclear attack would prevent any other nation from invading, and in turn bolster their national defense.

Thirdly, nuclear energy would help Iran economically. We have already seen over the last several months wild fluctuations in the price of oil, and those fluctuations have wreaked havoc with the Iranian economy. The oil subsidies currently in use domestically have only worsened the situation. Nuclear power would allow Iran to primarily export oil while addressing their own energy needs. And like most other countries on earth, Iran is aware of the limitations of oil and is looking to diversify its energy sources.

All of these reasons – prestige, defense, energy – speak to Iran’s national interests, and as such are things to be addressed if any compromise is to be reached. When engaging with the Iranians, we must bear in mind that while we may disagree seriously with their government, the interests of our two countries are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we must find a way to accommodate their interests if we hope to change their will regarding nuclear power. As with any compromise, this requires concessions on both sides. There are things the United States could do for Iran and vice-versa, and we should be open to negotiating. It may come to pass then that an agreement ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program would include allowances and even assistance by the United States for an Iranian nuclear energy program. Such an agreement should be more than acceptable for the simple reason that it would involve the engagement of both countries, and it would address Iran’s needs while not running totally counter to America’s interests.

Such an agreement should not be seen as akin to negotiating with terrorists. The potential of a nuclear-armed Iran is not a bargaining chip or an attempt to blackmail the world community; it is a fact, despite the NPT, which is politically and diplomatically advantageous to Iran, and as such requires a political and diplomatic solution (i.e. a compromise). Iran is a sovereign nation, acting in their interests, and the United States should treat them diplomatically and engage with them in an equitable manner. To do so would be doubtlessly beneficial to achieving America’s foreign policy goals. Likewise, we shouldn’t let conflict with Iran over their nuclear program adversely affect possible cooperation in other areas. As noted, our respective interests are not mutually exclusive, and there are issues on which the needs of the two countries are parallel. Stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, the elimination of al-Qaeda, and security in former Soviet republics are all examples of areas where the United States and Iran could productively cooperate in mutually beneficial ways. To preclude cooperation on these or other issues because of separate disagreements would be little more than cutting off our nose to spite our face. Iran is a large country in an important strategic location; it cannot effectively be ignored, isolated or intimidated. But American policy towards them can be improved. We must work with the Iranians to find real, long-term, politically acceptable solutions. Doing so would in itself reinforce America’s standing as an equitable leader on the world stage, while at the same time helping us towards our foreign policy goals in the region.

D-Town Defensiveness

[Blogging is back. I promise to try posting more frequently. Really, I swear. I already got two other posts almost ready to go, I just thought this one was timelier.]

So if you haven’t noticed, the Big Three are going down the crapper. I realized the extent of the shitstorm last week when I met this girl in a club and when I told her where I was from she said, “Sorry about your economy.” In the rush to judgment on the matter, a lot, and I mean a shit-ton, of blame has been tossed at Detroit (both in the sense of the auto industry as well as towards the region and its people). Quite a bit of it is warranted. I don’t need to list the ways the Big Three have mismanaged themselves to the point of comedy (Michael Moore once joked that GM should be allowed to sell drugs because then nobody would want them), any glance at the news will fill you in if you’re curious. But amongst the recriminations being hurled at the RenCen (again, both literally and figuratively) there’s a lot of important aspects being missed.

To begin with, check out this article (which is also posted on my facebook page): http://www.freep.com/article/20081117/COL14/811170379

I won’t recap too much what’s said there, just add my own observations. To the rationalizations!

One of the most frequent criticisms is that GM (I’ll use it as a stand-in for the Big Three, it’s just easier) is simply uninnovative. It’s been surpassed by Toyota (ditto for foreign car companies) in terms of developing new technologies, particularly regarding fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. Setting aside the fact Ford five years ago developed its own hybrid and has the second-most hybrid models (to Toyota), innovation in terms of fuel is an intensely difficult thing for a car company to do because so much is out of their hands. For example: Sony (or whoever, I don’t really know) invents the BluRay disc as an improvement over DVDs. It develops both the disc and the player by itself, and voila, a newfangled, honest-to-God tech-no-lo-gic-al in-no-va-tion (you know, for emphasis). Sony ships it to stores who sell it. Say GM invents a car tomorrow that runs on hydrogen. Who’s going to buy it? Nobody. Not until there are hydrogen stations on every corner. The infrastructure involved with gas is so extensive that no car using something else is anywhere near economically viable. Expecting GM to come out with an answer to the oil crisis is asking them to come out with a car no one would buy. Additionally the research and development costs for experimental fuels are so immense, and the potential returns so small, that the research itself is a financial drain. In 2004 the US government slashed its alternative fuels funding (this was in the transportation bill that almost killed Amtrak, signed into law by our oilman president who said we were addicted to oil). As a result GM had to close its alternative fuel center.

It’s a similar issue with gas mileage. Putting the oil crisis at GM’s feet is simply unfair and disingenuous. America has a problem with oil consumption. This is a fact which goes far beyond our cars. It’s about the way we live, where we live, how we get around, how we ship things, how we conceive of our surroundings, how we view ourselves in relation to the government, society, each other. It is just part of American culture. (Don’t think so? Tell me a classic (in any sense) American movie that doesn’t involve cars or trucks. [If you say “Star Wars” I will find you and hit you.] A better question: how many of you had cars when you were teenagers?) While a case could be made that Detroit is partly responsible for this aspect of our culture, to expect us to change it now, while changing nothing else is just wrongheaded. Everyone knows GM makes giant eight-cylinder muscle machines that run on 100% undistilled Saudi gold, and Toyota makes tiny, fuel efficient marvels of engineering that run on kisses. The fact is, both companies made (and make) cars that Americans wanted to buy. Why? Because driving big cars is part of our culture.

This past summer, while gas prices were skyrocketing, Americans on average drove less than they had in decades. Was this an indication that Americans were more interested in conservation and using cars more intelligently? No. We don’t do that kinda thing. As gas prices dropped, driving went right back to previous levels. To blame GM for building big, fast cars is to blame them for giving the people what they want. And all automakers do it. The Nissan Armada, for example, gets 13 (!) miles per gallon highway, and NINE in the city. It was introduced in 2006.

The fact is, GM’s woes can be much more readily attributed to the current economic downturn (which hurts not only sales, but also financing, another huge source of revenue for automakers) than the models in their lineup. When I was selling cars in 2004-2005 gas wasn’t cheap, particularly at the time, yet despite working at a Ford dealership, people’s financial problems were to blame for the lack of sales, not for crappy cars or bad gas mileage. I even had one customer trade in a V6 SUV for one with a V8. (He almost couldn’t get a loan, but that was for other reasons.) True, fuel-efficient cars are selling better right now, and for the foreseeable future, and Toyota’s are more highly regarded than GM’s. The difference between GM and Toyota (here in the grand sense) is that Toyota’s base in Japan is much more conducive to small cars than GM’s base in North America. That’s just a fact. Could GM have built more fuel-efficient cars quicker? Maybe. They haven’t done a bad job of it so far. (Their displacement tool, which cuts off four cylinders in a V8 on the highway, is remarkably effective.) But they weren’t ready for the state of gas prices. Add GM to the list of American institutions who got caught with their pants down by energy costs in the last year.

A word on unions (you know, the people who brought you the weekend): A lot of people have pointed to the UAW as a (and in some cases THE) source of the Big Three’s financial woes. This line of reasoning goes that the wages and benefits the companies are obligated to pay their workers are preventing them from being competitive. The unions, and in turn the workers, are presented as greedy, lazy, overcompensated and utterly uncaring for the auto companies’ fate. This is, and I cannot stress this enough, reverse class warfare of the absolute worse kind. I find these assertions so vulgar and reprehensible that the words vulgar and reprehensible don’t even convey how repulsive and unconscionable they are. My own confusion as to why conservatives hate unions so much (if capitalism is all about making money, unions help workers make more money; what’s the problem?) aside, the workers not only build the cars, but also helped build the middle class and the mid-20th-century American economy, have already made huge concessions to help keep the automakers afloat, to say nothing of the tens of thousands whose jobs are long gone. (It’s estimated that Michigan alone has lost half a million jobs since 2000, and of that 500,000, 180,000 or so were from automotive companies.) To blame them is fucked up beyond words.

On a related note, GM pays $1,600 per car sold (though estimates go as high as $2,200) to pay for employees’—mostly retirees’—health benefits. This fact is often quoted as an example of the unions’ windfall (or whatever), but if we had some form of government-supported universal health care like Japan, Korea, Germany and Canada, the Big Three would be playing on par with their competitors. (Yes, it’s also true that if GM simply eliminated health benefits they would no longer have to cover those costs. But if you think that’s a good solution, economically and/or morally, you should be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. [I may be getting a little riled up.]) You may notice that I included Canada in that list of countries. You’re probably thinking, hey, Canada doesn’t have any car companies. You’d be right. What Canada does have, in addition to universal health care, are car plants AND unions. Funny, that. As of 2005, Ontario has more car plants than Michigan, and the most in North America. This is despite the fact CAW contracts are virtually the same as the UAW’s, and the unions are actually more powerful because there aren’t any of the government restrictions on unions’ activity found in the United States. Car companies, including foreign ones like Honda, Toyota, Kia and Volkswagon, are building plants in Canada instead of in the South, where they could pay their workers less and avoid unions altogether. So why Canada? Maybe the fine people at Kia really like hockey. But I doubt that’s the reason.

Should GM have done more to promote universal health care? Absolutely. And in the past few years they have lobbied for it. Why they can’t do more is beyond me, and not something I’ll defend, but to be fair, any company that isn’t an HMO would benefit from universal health care, so this could be chalked up to general societal skepticism or whatever.

I’m at 1500 words, so I’ll wrap it up. Does GM deserve a government bailout? I don’t know. Maybe bankruptcy would help them get their shit together. From a business perspective it might be helpful; I couldn’t say. I can say that companies which actually make something tangible are (or should be) much more deserving of assistance than companies who got fucked selling worthless pieces of paper and meaningless numbers in some derivative formula. Whether they get a bailout or not, to single the Big Three out for bad management at a time when companies all over the country, and indeed the world are hurting is simply unfair. And singling out their workers is simply deplorable. And so, on behalf of all D-Town people, I’d like to say:

Fuck all y’all.

(My second choice for a closing line was: 'You wanna take a step back? You standing on my dick.' Something like this:)

My all-time favorite songs (Pt. 1)

Here's a list of some (!) of my all-time favorite songs. This is not, as Andy thought, a ranking of my favorite songs, just attempted descriptions of why I like them. Some are deep (“Atlantic City”), some are not (“Flava in Ya Ear”), but what ties them all together is I’m always glad when they come up on shuffle. If I had to burn one CD for the rest of my life, these songs would be on there without question. I’d never get tired of these. [Due to this last fact, some newer (to me) songs that I really like have been left off, because I’m not quite sure yet if they quite make it to that standard (see, or listen to, rather, Hayes Carll “She Left Me for Jesus” and Spoon “You Got Yr Cherry Bomb”).] Without further ado, to the music [in no particular order, of course]!

The Replacements - “Bastards of Young” – Tim—The best song about being young and confused about damn near everything, and having no idea what/who you want: ‘The ones who love us best/are the ones we lay to rest/we visit their graves on holidays at best/The ones who love us least/are the ones we die to please/if it’s any consolation, I don’t begin to understand it’.

El-P – “The Overly Dramatic Truth” – I’ll Sleep When You’re Dead—Yeah, as my friend described it, it’s really angry. But I love it because it’s a rap song that’s different from damn near every other rap song. It’s about a screwed-up relationship, with a remarkably mature perspective that’s equally as ambivalent about the situation: “Do as I say not as I do.” I think everybody who’s been in a crumbling relationship but not sure how to act can relate to that sentiment. Plus it sounds cool, so it’s got that going for it.

Tom Waits – “Come On Up to the House” – Mule Variations—I’m not sure if this song is about death or Jesus or both, but it’s fucking beautiful. There’s something about the phrase ‘come on up to the house’ that, to me, evokes an image of a house, very cozy and home-y, on a hill above a road, and the friendly sentiment of the invitation: things are tough here out on the road, you’re tired, hungry, why don’t you come on up to the house? What can I say, it just gets me.

Squarepusher – “Theme for Ernest Borgnine” – Feed Me Weird Things—Why Ernest Borgnine? I don't have a fucking clue. But it’s good. So good. I know not everybody likes it, but I do, and I have a blog. I guess that makes me (self-)important.


Craig Mack – “Flava In Ya Ear” – (I have no idea what album’s this on)—Probably the best rap song of the 90s, and I’m not kidding. For everybody who hasn’t listened to it since the sixth grade, get that shit on iTunes. The beat is great, it’s catchy as all hell, Mack’s flow is smooth. No, the lyrics aren’t deep; it’s a song about how great of a rapper he is. But since when is that a problem? This song bounces, and you’ll be singing the hook for the next eight years (as long as it was between when it came out and when I finally downloaded it).


Hey, remember when hockey jerseys were cool? My closet does.

Rancid – “It’s Quite Alright” – Rancid (2000)—I’m not really sure what to say about this song, other than it’s genius, so I’ll just pass along how Vic Ruggiero of the Slackers described it to me: “It’s like something Dylan would write.” Yeah, but the lyrics are comprehensible, too. Plus profound AND concise, which is a great combination.

The White Stripes – “Ball & Biscuit” – Elephant—The lyrics to this song, however, are completely incomprehensible, and I get the impression that they were intended that way. Nonsensical is the best way to describe them. But that’s not the point. Just listen to the way the guitar comes in at the very beginning, and that’s it. You’re hooked. I don’t even like guitar solos, and this is a 7-minute song with about 40 seconds of lyrics, and it’s still one of my favorites. How the hell does that work? Well.

Ryan Adams – “To Be Young” – Heartbreaker—Is that David Spade? [Honorable mention to “My Sweet Carolina” from this same album. I just didn’t want to load up on ‘Heartbreaker’ songs.]

Common w/ Kanye West – “The Food” – Be—Like “Flava In Ya Ear” for the 00s, except with a social conscience, and better lyrics. But that beat, good lord, does it bounce.

Black Star w/ Common – “Respiration” – Mos Def & Talib Kweli Are Black Star—The only reason this is listed after “The Food” is I was thinking of Common songs I like. They really have nothing to do with each other, except for they’re both about living in the city and how it’s shitty. But other than that, not much. The big difference is this song has heft behind it. And I mean that in the best possible way. The song is profound without being heavy-handed, unlike basically all of Kweli’s solo work. (As a complete aside, I’m waiting for the day when the word ‘Message!’ is inserted into Kweli songs like in “Don’t Be a Menace”.) I’ve always liked Mos better than Kweli (obviously) and I think this song is a good companion piece to “Thieves in the Night” which follows immediately after on the album. According to the liner notes, “Thieves” was completely Kweli’s creation, where he basically decided take a key paragraph from “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison and turn it into a song (which is cool, though it works way better as a piece of prose than a hook). “Respiration”, despite Kweli and Common, is pretty clearly Mos’ baby, and it works, I think, so much better as a song. It’s substantial, it’s deep, and it moves. But I think the best, and most accurate thing I can say about it is that it’s just good. Check out the AV Club’s Permanent Records Hall of Fame for their description of this album, written by Nathan Rabin, who’s just cool:
www.avclub.com/content/feature/permanent_records_albums_from_9
[I don't know what's up with links on this site. Just add a 9 to the end to get it to work.]

The Articles – “Dragonfly” – Flip f’Real—You’ll be sorely missed, Articles, but your memory will live on with this catchy-ass, grooving song. Let me know when they’re ready. –They’re ready.

Bruce Springsteen – “Atlantic City” – Nebraska—a ton of other people have written whole books (well, more like chapters) on ‘Nebraska’, so there’s not much new that I can add. But I will say this: “Highway Patrolman” is a five-minute emotional pummeling from beginning to end; “Atlantic City” is an emotional sucker punch. (The line “I’ve been looking for a job but it’s hard to find/ down here it’s just winners and losers and don’t get caught on the wrong side of that line” always gets me.) Is that better? I don’t know, they’re both great songs, but “Atlantic City” is a better rock song. If you don’t believe me, check out Springsteen Plugged, where he does an electric version with a full band. Anything can sound haunted if it’s sparse enough, but it takes some serious songwriting for hauntedness to come through with a full-on, 1980s keyboard stack involved. (There’s video on YouTube. It has not aged well.)


Bob Dylan – “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” – Bringin It All Back Home—Probably (though not for certain) my favorite Dylan song, despite the fact I have no idea what it’s about. The title would suggest the end of a relationship, but if you actually listen to the lyrics, it’s not so clear. But still great.

The Slackers – “The Nurse” – Wasted Days—Another song whose lyrics don't make the most sense, but it’s just a well-crafted song, and you really can’t beat the chorus: “So roll out the stretcher/ and make me feel better/ for what is bad, don’t feel glad/ for what is worse, I’m the nurse.” And if you can see them live, do it. You'll have a great time, especially if they're playing the Blind Pig.


Gladys Knight & the Pips – “Midnight Train to Georgia”—The Pips? “Woo woo!” Come on, man. It even works as high comedy (maybe not high, but certainly comedy):



The Clash – “White Man in Hammersmith Palais”—There’s an on-going debate in my head as to whether this or “Straight to Hell” is my favorite Clash song. Truth is, I don’t know, but this song is just more fun, and if the main criteria is not getting sick of it, then I think this one may have to win.

Cake – “Stick Shifts and Safety Belts” – Fashion Nugget—A song about girls and big American cars? Making fun of Japanese cars? Yes, please.

Murder by Death – “Brother”—I haven’t been blown away by the rest of this group’s songs, but this one, kind of a cousin to “Highway Patrolman” in more ways than one, gets it right. It sounds good and has real pathos in the lyrics: “There may be better brothers but you’re the only one that’s mine.” I wish I could take that line back behind the middle school and get it pregnant.

Tom Waits – “Hoist That Rag” – Real Gone—I was hesitant to include this song, because there’s a real danger any list of my favorite songs could turn into a Tom Waits love fest, but it came on iPod on shuffle and I couldn’t leave it out. If there’s any question of Tom Waits’ greatness (and if there is then I’m gonna have to ask you to leave), this song should settle it. Just stylistically speaking, it’s a remarkable achievement. How many late-70s coffee shop singer/songwriters could produce a song like this in 2004? Just one. Just listen to the interplay between the guitar and his voice with the percussion. It’s fucking genius. This may be my second favorite use of the guitar ever, behind, of course, “Ball & Biscuit”.

Rolling Stones – “Beast of Burden”—My favorite Stones song, easily beating out “Wild Horses” with “Sympathy for the Devil” pulling up in third, and I have Sara to thank for introducing me to it. I’ve always been a fan of simplicity, and that’s the best way to describe this song: simple and uncomplicated, in the very best possible way.

Zion I w/ Knowmatic, Eclipse 427 & Rasco – “All tha Way” – Mind Over Matter—If you don’t get down to this song, then “you don’t need help, you need a good ass-kicking.” Or maybe you just don't like good hip-hop, but either way the ass-kicking thing still applies.

The Roots w/ Cody Chestnutt – “The Seed 2.0” – Phrenology—I realize this may not be the most obscure song to add here, but I don’t give a shit. In a convenient little musical experiment, this song can be heard without the Roots’ contribution, in Cody Chestnutt’s original solo version. Listen to it; it couldn’t do version 2.0’s laundry. My feelings on Roots in general fluctuate pretty frequently between loving everything they do and a broad fondness for them, but “The Seed” always pulls me back towards the former. I like them for the same reasons I like El-P (and to a lesser extent k-os): It’s rap, and noticeably so, but it’s different. Jay-Z distinguishes himself with personality, Mos Def and Common through intelligence, whereas the Roots and El-P are distinguished by simply being distinct, stylistically separate from every other act out there. They’re special, unlike everyone else.

I think I should wrap it up here. I wanted to put in clips for every song, but that was a lotta work, and I didn't feel like it. I know I’ve left a lot of worthy entries off, and so I feel a Part II blog is in order. [WORD’s spellchecker doesn’t recognize ‘blog’, and I feel this is relevant. Way to go, Microsoft, you suck ass at what you do.] I’m still trying to get into the groove of putting up entries on a semi-frequent regular basis, and I’ve actually written quite a bit of stuff that I just don’t feel is quite ready for public consumption. But it’s all in the works. I have big plans for this blog that are just waiting to be dashed. But until then, loyal readers, just know your differing opinions are appreciated, and also wrong.