Majorly English

Man, fans lately have just been a whole lotta douchebag. First, we had the Michael Axelrod mini-saga, which I detailed in my previous posts, and now we’ve got an anonymous Patriots fan who deems his random luck as somehow worth anything more than a pat on the back and some kudos.

If you follow football, you may have seen Doug Flutie kick a rare drop-kick for the Patriots this season. The NFL hadn’t seen that play for a long, long time, and as such, the Patriots would like the ball for the program’s posterity. A random anonymous fan caught it, and now he’s holding it for ransom like Mel Gibson’s kid in that one movie where she gets kidnapped and kept in a creepy room and fed cough syrup. You know the one, it’s got that sweet scene where Gibson just flips out on the phone with the kidnappers? Yea, that one.

But this fan seems to think that having his butt in a lucky random spot makes it worth something. Here’s his list of demands, as put forth by his lawyer:

“1. Payment of $100,000 on delivery of the football.

“2. A guarantee of eight season tickets for 25 years in the end zone (preferably sections 142 or 143). The season tickets will be paid for annually by my client at the then-going price for season tickets. The Patriots would not be expected to pay for the tickets.

“3. Delivery by the Patriots to my client, sometime in September 2006, of a Tom Brady Patriots football jersey signed by all the team members as of the beginning of the next football season.”

First off, if you want some kindness from an organization, there’s got to be a warmer way to come across than a ice-cold letter from a legal representative, isn’t there? And please, it’s just a football, and it wasn’t even THAT big a deal.

The best part is Patriots’ owner Robert Kraft’s response: “I hope he enjoys the football.”

Nicely played, you wily Kraft you.

As a follow-up to my last update, Michael Axelrod has decided not to sue Antonio Davis for slander after the incident where Davis climbed into the stands to diffuse a situation between Axelrod and Davis’s wife. Axelrod originally pursued legal action because Davis said he believed the man was intoxicated, but never mentioned Axelrod by name. Only in pursuing a case did Axelrod’s name and ugly mug (see previous entry) get in the paper. Nicely played.

Of course, this all is blatantly transparent of Axelrod simply slapping a legal case in front of Davis to squeeze out an apology that wasn’t rightfully deserved. Kudos to Davis for standing his ground and refusing to do so.

Axelrod had to know that he had no case, Davis never said him by name. For all we know, he could have been referring to me, as I have been intoxicated before in my life, or even the late Pope John Paul II (I don’t care if it is the Blood of Christ, drink a gallon of it and you’re still getting plastered).

The world redeems itself.

OK, sports nuts, I’m sure you’ve heard about the most recent escapade in the NBA, and for once, nobody got pregnant this time. Antonio Davis of the New York Knicks climbed up into the stands in a recent game against the Chicago Bulls when he said he saw a situation in which his wife was in trouble. No blows were had, and he obliged with leaving with security when asked to. Nonetheless, David Stern suspended him for five games, citing a zero tolerance policy for climbing into the stands by players.

However, the story gets more interesting in that the supposed perpetrator of the situation, Michael Axelrod, is suing Davis for a supposed $1 million for slander, pointing out that Davis believed that the man was drunk at the time. Never mind that his father is a prominent Democratic consultant, and political reputations are at stake. I can just imagine the conversation held between young Michael and his bigwig father:

Michael: Hey, Dad? Have you seen Sportscenter yet? No? Good! Uh, heh, you remember those great Bulls tickets you got me?
Dad: Why do you ask?
Michael: While, it may be possible that I got into a drunken slapfight with Antonio Davis’s wife, and he ran into the stands to diffuse the situation.
Dad: MFFLE GHARDN FUGHJ! (“What the hell is wrong with you?” muffled by the Colt .45 placed in his mouth, in a noble attempt to die before his political clout does.)
Michael: Yea, it really is lame. Don’t worry, though, I’m taking care of it. By suing him!

Yep, that’s the best way to get out of this hairy situation, pursue litigation and keep this story front page news for a few weeks longer. Nicely played, silver spoon.

We’ve all heard of lawyer double-speak, right? Check out this quote from Axelrod’s attorney, Jay Paul Deratany:

“Both of us respect the game and the point was to send a message not to harass fans — either physically or by later comments that disparage their character,” Deratany said. “If that’s accomplished, then it’s time to move on. It’s never been about money.”

The following line in the article?

On Thursday, Deratany said he planned to sue Davis and his wife for more than $1 million, alleging battery by Kendra Davis and slander by her husband.

That’s gotta qualify as at least quintuple-speak.

But the litigious bounty doesn’t end there, he also wants Davis to donate money to a charity that helps prevent violence against women and children. You’d think that if Axelrod really wanted to prevent violence against women and children, he could start by, you know, not harassing a woman and child at an NBA game? Different strokes, I guess.

But Davis can get out of all of this by simply apologizing for what occurred. His response? “No way, Jose.”

I think it’s great that Davis is standing up to Axelrod this way (SIDENOTE: FACT: Axelrod would be a great porn star/hair band name: END SIDENOTE). He’s not going to be bulled into a fake apology with the threat of litigation. To use a basketball metaphor, instead of pulling up for a safe but difficult fadeaway, Davis is going to drive the ball into the paint, bang some bodies, and force his way through to the basket, possibly drawing a foul in the process. Atta boy, Antonio Davis.

PHOTO: Antonio Davis and wife Kendra, left, Axelrod (bald) and some guy (dunno), right. Axelrod is planning on suing Davis for slander, after which he plans on suing his child molesting lookin’ face for slander as well.

If you follow sports, I’m sure you heard that crunchy/squishy sound that was Peyton Manning throwing his entire offensive line under the bus after the Colts’ loss to Pittsburgh this past weekend. If you haven’t, here’s the quote in the post-game press conference:

I’m trying to be a good teammate here . . . let’s just say we had some protection problems.

Um, isn’t Peyton doing anything but being a good teammate here? In fact, I believe that I’m correct in saying he’s doing the exact opposite of what he claims to be setting out to do. Quite the conundrum. Some people think Peyton shouldn’t be getting any heat for this comment, but trust me, it wouldn’t work in other situations in life:

Honey, I’m trying to be a good husband here . . . let’s just say I may have a slight prostitution proclivity.

Sir, I’m trying to be a good employee here . . . let’s just say that I occasionally fantastize about the encounter between your fat face and my three iron.

Cow, I’m trying to be a good vegetarian here . . . let’s just say “this hamburger is delicious.”

(click for video)

Here we go.

EDIT: Go to ESPN.com right now. It’s 8:53 Monday morning, and right now, the main page has a picture of the Steelers with the headline TITLE TWISTS. Is ESPN making a play on words with “Titty Twist”? That’s kind of in poor taste, right?

ESPN is beginning to bother me, in that they’re constantly trying to create controversy and find stories when there aren’t any. For example, on Sportscenter this morning, one of the pre-commerical break tags was about Carson Palmer and his ACL injury in the Steelers-Bengals playoff game. Many of you have probably seen it, when Kemo Van Oelhoffen (sp?) rolled over and twisted Palmer’s knee on the second play of the game, tearing his ACL and MCL. That being said, how did ESPN tease the segment?

Carson Palmer SPEAKS OUT about his injury against the Steelers! WAS it a CHEAP SHOT? STAY TUNED!

Well, I stayed tuned, and sure enough, Palmer said that it wasn’t a cheap shot, just an unlucky situation that you’ll find when you play a physical game like football. See, no story there, everybody acknowledges that it was just bad luck, and the entire planet sans ESPN is moving on.

That question tease is such a cheap trick. They ask the question like it’s a legitimate debate, when they well know that there is no controversy behind this situation. I mean, there are literally an infinite amount of questions that you could ask with the answer “no” to them, and that doesn’t mean that you have the right to pose them just for maximum dramatic effect. Sure, I can ask “Are my nipples capable of emitting electricity like Emperor Palpatine’s fingers in The Return of the Jedi?” Of course the answer is no. How about, “If Michael Bolton copulated with former talk show host Jenny Jones, would their offspring be able to breathe underwater?” Again, ridiculous question. But when I ask those questions, it forces people to acknowledge the situation and reach a conclusion, no matter how ridiculous it may be.

If ESPN is going down that route, why not go the whole way? Why not tease every commercial break with questions like, “Did Terrell Owens have a bastard child with Tonya Harding?” and “Is Mike Tyson able to read dogs’ minds? STAY TUNED!” Jeez, ESPN, if you’re gonna create a fictional controversey, go all out! All the anchors are responsible for these fabricated “news” stories, all of them. I’m even looking at you, Stuart Scott, even though you can’t return the gaze.

P.S. Since Stuart Scott has that crazy milky eye that he poorly hides behind a pair of glasses, can we give him a fluffy cat to stroke during segments just to complete the supervillain look? A scar running down his cheek would help too. Then he’d be as cool as the other side of the pillow.

My hometown continues to impress. A few days ago, the unofficial mascot of my local minor league hockey team, the Johnstown Chiefs, accidentally set himself on fire when a stunt went awry. The mascot, named Puckhead, went out onto the ice for a fire breathing feat, in which he placed a flammable liquid in his mouth and blew it into a flame. After a failed first attempt, his second attempt at fire breathing resulted in his fake beard (?) and jersey to be ignited. An arena worker rushed to remove the flaming items, and he was able to walk off the ice under his own power.

In something I still haven’t been able to figure out, the news article states that “McGeehan [Chiefs VP of Business Operations] said the Chiefs are investigating.” What exactly are they investigating? Bored doofus walks onto ice, sets himself on fire, leaves ice. I don’t think there’s a grassy knoll at play here.

But the million dollar question is this: Which is sadder: the fact that my hometown hockey team’s unofficial mascot accidentally set himself on fire, or the fact that his unofficial status most likely means he did it for free?

I promised myself I wouldn’t do it. I knew it wasn’t healthy, and it would do nothing to enhance myself as a person. It was of no discernible worth, but I couldn’t stay away. I watched an episode of Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet II last night on MTV. In fact, just a couple weeks ago, I flipped to it idly, turned to my girlfriend and said, “Please don’t ever let me watch this show again, it’s completely devoid of any value, and I am only dirtying myself by watching it.” Well, she headed down to see her family yesterday, and where do I find myself last night? Yep, watching Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet II.

It’s like (DISGUSTING METAPHOR AHEAD) a scab; you know you should just leave it alone, and it’ll be gone in a while. You know that, but you can’t help but check it out, pick at it a little. Before you know it, you’re bleeding again, it hurts, and you’ll know have a scar to remind me of the time you couldn’t leave it alone. That’s what watching The Gauntlet II is like: a big, oozing scab.

To summarize the challenge show format, a variety of Real World and Road Rules cast members from years gone by have returned to some tropical locale to compete in a variety of team competitions to earn cash and prizes and avoid any sort of legitimate employment. This year, the teams are divided into Challenge Rookies and Challenge Veterans, which means that we’ve had enough shows to merit deeming some players “Veterans.” Now here’s the twist: if a team loses a challenge, the team captain and a member of their own team must face off in The Gauntlet to compete to stay on the show and avoid the terrors of paying bills and gainful employment for another few weeks.

My biggest problem with these challenge shows is that the people we’re watching have done nothing to earn the right of being watched as household entertainment. Remember when The Real World claimed that it was about “seeing what happens when people stop being polite, and start being real. The Real World! *giggle*”? So if we follow that line of logic, then it safe to assume that the people who are on RW are just average people, who are ready to start getting real, correct? It wouldn’t be “real” if the show consisted of a triple amputee, a member of the Pygmy tribe of Africa, a homosexual unicycle rider, and an arrogant necrophiliac with a penchant for showtunes, because we, the moronic viewing public, would not be able to identify with any of the characters as “real.” We want people that we see in our everyday lives, and RW claims to give that to us.

If they claim to give us “real” people, then what have they done to earn the right to humiliate themselves on national television for valuable Best Buy gift certificates and Nintendo DS’s?

ARGUMENT 1: I watch sports, and The Gauntlet II consists of athletic-ish challenges, what’s the difference?
INSIGHTFUL RESPONSE: The people in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and such are paid and put on television because of said athletic ability. The people on The Gauntlet II are not desired for their athletic prowess, simply the name recognition that comes with drinking themselves into a stupor for six months while cameras film them in order to properly shame their grandmas.

ARGUMENT 2: What’s the harm in it? If I want to watch these people I’ve come to recognize accomplish various feats of strength, speed, and inebriation, what’s the problem?
INSIGHTFUL RESPONSE: The harm is in that we’re simply enabling these people to continue this charade that they’ve made of their lives. They know that, if they act outlandish in front of the cameras, they’ll be able to continue living on their transparent celebrity for an as-of-yet infinite amount of time.
I mean, Mark from the original Road Rules is on this show, and his RR was shot in 1994. Let’s assume that he was 20 years old at that time, a fair assessment. If we extrapolate the data, we can see that Mark is 32 years old and is still appearing on these challenge shows. I believe that most people would like to see their lives at 32 include a steady job, probably a loving spouse, and possibly even a family. Mark’s 32-year old reality consists of him completing objectives such as pushing a ball down a hill without using his hands, as well as dealing with the drama that comes with telling a younger woman (Jodi) that you love her, and then leaving her, only to find that you are living on a tropical estate with her and your new girlfriend (Robin). This is nowhere near “reality,” but it is rapidly approaching “pathetic.”

IDIOTIC ARGUMENT 3: If this is what these people want to do with their lives, why not let them have that luxury? You sound jealous, you jerk. I bet you sent in a tryout tape that they ended up showing in one of those “Worst of the Worst” compilations.
INSIGHTFUL RESPONSE: The problem is not with the cast members themselves (well, they are a problem, but not this problem), the problem is with the completely skewed perspective they have gained through these challenges. For example, when I was watching last night’s episode (out, damn spot!), the two female team captains were having a heart-to-heart. Kina (yes, Kina) asked Ruthie, the other captain, if she was worried about being gunned after by her other teammates, since she is smaller. Ruthie’s response?

“My whole life has been about the fight . . . Kill or be killed.”

My, my, quite the weighty rebuttal, perhaps there are some serious things at stake in this year’s The Gauntlet II. What “fight” would Ruthie find herself in the next day for a team challenge, one that was sure to be survival of the fittest? The teams must soak up sea water with sponges attached to their bodies, then squeeze it out over buckets in suggestive poses. I swear, they even stole the buckets with the red and blue lines to measure depth from Super Sloppy Family Double Dare.

This is my biggest problem with these types of shows: the over-inflated sense of self-importance. The people on this show take very seriously something that is not serious in any way whatsoever. No matter how you slice it, we are watching a bunch of people who backed into their celebrity commit demeaning tasks as a way to put off dealing with the mature responsibilities that their age should demand. Thousands of members of the youth of America watch this show and think this type of behavior is OK, and it’s not. These people got their start on a show called The Real World, and now through these challenges, they’re doing all they can to avoid it. MTV, if my generation turns out to be full of people that want to be given Nintendo DS’s and Best Buy gift cards just for being who they are, I’m blaming you. When the mob finally takes up the torches, we’re taking out your TRL studio first, especially that Quduus bastard.