President Oprah and her friends Barry and Michelle couldn't quite squeeze the Olympics out of, uh, the Olympic committee. Those rude Olympics people should be ashamed of themselves for not indulging the most important person in the world, not to mention the President of the United States. It really shouldn't come as a surprise that a panel of foreign dignitaries weren't so impressed with Chicago's main endorser being a TV star. Isn't the idea of a TV star who is constantly linked to bizarre weight-loss schemes sorta the antithesis for the pure athletic competition the Olympics are supposed to embody? Sure, Oprah is an easily recognizable media personality in this country, but it's doubtful that Sydney rested their hopes in 2000 on Crocodile Dundee's influence. However, the Olympic committee had to be appreciative for the free juicer and Desperate Housewives DVD they got just for being in Oprah's audience in Copenhagen.

Wait, that last paragraph ended up being a jab at this country's self-imposed media monarchy. That can't be right. Or maybe it is. If a country relies more on coked-out musicians and reality-deprived actors for its political opinions, there is no reason to think that the same country wouldn't think a TV talk show host is clearly the best person to bring the Olympics to the city from where she just so happens to broadcast. Do you think there could have been some ulterior motive for Oprah in bringing the Olympics to Chicago? Maybe a week or two of special shows where she runs around in a USA tracksuit and eats those little gymnast girls?

Well, there's another paragraph about the failed bid for the Olympics. Remember, we lost. Just imagine if Chicago had finished third. Or second. Or, God forbid, won. It would be the ObamaOprahOlympic Games. Well, maybe not. The games aren't until 2016 and at the current rate, Obama will still be trying to convince members of his own party that he has all the answers for healthcare reform. That's also assuming he is reelected. The ever-influential medium of bumper stickers has already started playing a role in that once-believed foregone conclusion.

So, is Obama kinda like Prince now? Has it come to the point where the President of the United States has been branded by a logo? Of course, the last president was simplified to just a letter. Will future presidents be identified by just a color? A punctuation mark? An abstract thought? How will that translate to car bumpers?

So anyway, back to the Olympics. Since the summer of '16 will belong to Rio, the clever advertising people are left with only two choices for how to brand the last letter of "Chicago" for the time-being. Obviously the Olympics felt like they already had enough O's in their life.

Muse is a band that has never put out a bad record, but they have gotten a little silly on some of their records with the over-the-top bombast and production. Regardless, nobody can accuse Muse of a lack of talent, creativity and huge sound, which is to be commended. To summarize, they have roughly followed this career arc:

1999: Bashed for being Radiohead rip-offs
2001: Crazy prog-rock that is too crazy and too prog for an American record deal
2003: Reemergence as a stadium-worthy with some political leanings
2006: American relevance from an album that sounds forced, but attention-grabbing
2009: A much more focused effort with a well-deserved opening slot for U2

Then there's this. Muse recently appeared on what appears to be a completely ridiculous looking Italian TV show. Apparently they were told they must lip-sync their performance and they agreed. However, they made it interesting by switching roles. For your reference, in the video, the singer/guitarist plays drums, the drummer sings/plays bass and the bassist plays guitar/keyboard. The entire thing is one big joke and nobody seems to notice, or care.

It was strange doing the following last weekend:

-Flying on an airplane on September 11. Eight years after that date actually started meaning more than just another day, so much of life has changed. Certainly the increased security and scrutiny at airports is there, but even life on the ground has changed a lot. The price of oil, the White House administration and even tiny Mexican towns are a lot different now than 8 years ago.

-Visiting an NFL stadium on the opening weekend of the season, but not to watch a game. NFL stadiums have a different feel to them, especially one like Soldier Field that is visually interesting on its own, much less when something impressive is happening inside.

-Eating pork rinds at an honest-to-goodness high-end restaurant.

Ok, there had to be more to that last entry's train of thought than was demonstrated. Time is a weird thing, but hopefully that's not really of interest to anyone. It's just odd how time dictates so much, yet is so abstract. Time is told by atomic clocks and swiss watches, but also the ocean's tide, the moon and the earth itself floating in orbit. Kinda odd.

Once you grasp how and why time is told, there's the confounding matter of time moving fast and slow sometimes. Why is this? Of course a second is always just a second and a minute is always just a minute, but perception of time varies greatly. Eight hours of sleep feels a lot different than eight hours of ditch digging, just like a 5 minute massage feels a lot faster than 5 minutes of holding your breath. Is time actually slower? Well maybe, but most would assume these differences are just the result of how the brain and body respond to different stimuli. This begs, is time really that powerful or important if we can alter it with our simple minds? Time seems have a bit of an identity crisis. People want their week-long vacation to somehow last longer than a week, yet people can't count to ten accurately without saying a 4-syllable, 11-letter word ("Mississippi") in between each number.

Just to further over-analyze and bother, how is it that simultaneously one person could be having a "fast" day and another could be having a "slow" day? What is actually moving faster or slower? Well, it just "feels" longer or shorter, you know? That may be true, but does it mean anything? Is a busy day at work more likely to feel long or short? Some would say long because they were forced to do so many things and when you think about one thing, then another, then another, that implies a great deal of time passing. However, some people feel like staying busy makes time go by faster. For instance, this blog entry has taken about 20 minutes to write so far because SportsCenter is on, but it doesn't feel like its been that long. However, 20 minutes of just typing on this inane topic would seem like an eternity by comparison.

So, in some weird way, are some people moving in fast motion while others are moving in slow motion, but your brain just can't process the difference? Maybe, in some strange space-time continuum kind of way. Thing is, if you stop and think about it, it doesn't really matter if you think about it for 10 seconds if it feels like you think about it for 10 minutes. What is 10 seconds if it feels like 10 minutes and all you have to show for it is a headache. Right?

"Time" is the name of a song by many artists, including Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Ben Folds, Anthrax, Alan Parsons Project, Hootie and the Blowfish, Megadeth, Sarah McLachlan, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Tom Waits. Clearly, time plays a pretty major role in whatever, be it music, sports, politics or life in general. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but some people still have a slight misunderstanding of how universal time is and how it is basically a constant in everyone's life, not just their own.

"Time is very important in my life"

These inspiring words were uttered by a client on TLC's highly-esteemed show LA Ink. The specifics of this client aren't really important, although it may have been the overweight stand-up comedienne. Regardless, she wanted to get a tattoo of a pocket watch because of how important time is to her.

It seems that time is one of those things that is kinda important to everyone. This may be nothing more than digging for something to complain about, but it fits the theme of this entry. Would it be silly if someone got a tattoo of money or gravity because of their importance? Why not oxygen or nitrogen?

All of the aforementioned musicians obviously thought time was important enough to write a song about it, so maybe there's something to this. Pink Floyd appropriately started their "Time" with a recording of an alarm clock and metronome, along with other time-keeping devices. Then again, they also have the song "Money" that starts with the sound of cash registers and coins clanking. So, there's the secret to making a historic album like Dark Side of the Moon: just record sounds and name the song after whatever sound is contained. Moving on...

Thank goodness for calendars!

Ok, this entry wouldn't be complete without some ranting about a Facebook status, but try to deal with it. Who says this (aside from the obvious)? In today's technologically-advanced world, is a calendar something that really needs to have its praises sung, as if somehow people might forget about its existence? Aren't calendars just one of those commodities that can taken for granted among anyone with the facilities to read Facebook? Would it be any better if someone expressed such admiration for modern marvels like indoor plumbing, newspapers or peanut butter and jelly in one jar? Clearly some people are just too easy to please.

While it is certainly old news to anyone that cared enough to pay attention to the story, the Henry Louis Gates fiasco bears discussion. The incident that led to all the mess was certainly unfortunate for everyone involved, but it did illustrate an important lesson: There doesn't always have to be a "right" and "wrong" side of an issue/argument.

A brief recap:

-Dr. Gates, an esteemed Harvard professor that is African-American returns to his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts after a trip overseas.
-Upon arrival, he and his driver struggle to get the door unlocked/open. It is apparently jammed.
-While they (both African-American) try to pry the house door open, a neighbor sees this happening and calls 911 in fear that the house is being robbed.
-Two police officers arrive on the scene and begin questioning Gates as if a robbery had been attempted. Gates explains the scenario and cause for confusion.
-Gates is highly agitated and becomes "disorderly" with the officers, so he's arrested and taken into custody by Officer Crowley (white), with assistance from Officer Lashley (black).
-Boom!

In the end, all charges were dropped and President Obama made a hasty remark about the police officer(s) responded "stupidly". (Incidentally, how that little faux pas hasn't been further scrutinized, the world may never know.) Regardless, it basically was portrayed as a clear-cut example of racial profiling since among the two men trying to open the door and the two police officers, three were black and one was white. If only it could have been all one race or another, this would have never been a story.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the media really has taken this story and made it into something it is not. This is easy to assess because the story was nothing to start with, so making it into anything is, by default, making it into something it is not. By presenting this as actual "news", it has made people think they have to have an opinion on it and ultimately take a side. Once everyone chooses sides, it is their duty to defend their position and spit vitriol at the opposing side. Then the media can report on that. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Could it possibly be that there is not a "right" or "wrong" side to this story? Maybe Dr. Gates is partially innocent and partially guilty? After all, he was never charged with breaking into his own house (obviously). He was charged with disorderly conduct because he became very aggressive and hostile toward the police officers, both white and black. That's usually what happens when you are aggressive and hostile toward a police officer, regardless of your race or theirs. Officer Crowley can also be held to blame for not being more rational, given the circumstances. He acknowledged that it was Dr. Gates' house during the proceedings, so he had a basis for why Dr. Gates would be so frustrated in such circumstance. Ultimately it doesn't really matter who did what first or to what extent. Among two grown men, one an internationally-esteemed scholar and the other a civil servant, it is sad that the outcome was what it was. It doesn't really say much for society, especially in the cradle of higher learning of this country.

Almost on cue in response to the actions of a couple of grown men that know better, President Obama made his now-famous offer to have a beer with Gates and Crowley. Of course, this was just what the media needed. Was this a new and exciting way to resolve conflict from the brilliant leader? Or was it a lame attempt at appearing harmonious and cool at the same time? Again, couldn't the answer be "neither" and it not really matter either way? Will the Obama/Gates/Crowley beer summit stop a violent act from happening? Will it make anyone legitimately feel better about themselves? Unfortunately, the answer has to be "no" to both questions. But did it give the media something to talk about once they were tired of talking about the incident that led to it? Absolutely.


Geez, hopefully nobody noticed that Gates' beer was darker than the others.

New favorite Facebook comment for anything:

WOW!...Just WOW!

Find new and fun ways to work it into your daily life...

-When you get cut off in morning traffic: WOW!...Just WOW!

-When you get a ridiculous assignment at work: WOW!...Just WOW!

-When you eat too much for lunch: WOW!...Just WOW!

-When you read a story in the newspaper: WOW!...Just WOW!

-When your obnoxious neighbors make highly inconsiderate noise all night: WOW!...Just WOW!

So yes, it's fairly odd that a video clip from CBS Sunday Morning would show up around here, but it meets the main criteria of inclusion in this blog. If you're unaware of said criteria, here's a reminder:

1. Involves something ridiculous/annoying
2. Involves people following something blindly
3. Involves boredom
4. Involves the Cleveland Indians
5. Involves Wilco

Aha! Number 5 it is!

a band doing band stuff
by AxYoung

Save your comments about how it's lame for a media outlet that targets old people with hip music. Given that the age range of Wilco's members is about 40 to 53, it's sort of a lost argument in this case.

Strange things:

-Michael Vick has been signed by a team that used to play in a stadium nicknamed "The Vet".

-Brett Favre has cried in public multiple times and now has worked so hard...to wear purple.

-There are still movies being made in the Final Destination and Fast and Furious series.

-After many long days at work, a box of Wheat Thins is the perfect accompaniment to couch-time.

-Bud Light is already making commercials that are blatant rip-offs of the Billy Mays ad man style. Too soon?

-Usain Bolt is a human.

-Man U lost to Burnley.

Cash for Clunkers is such a hit. Just like so many other big ideas. Of course the idea is nice and many people are doing everything they can to make the most of it. Why shouldn't they? They got to buy that land-barge several years back and burn tons of gasoline while oil was relatively cheap, which led to new highways being built and old highways being ruined. Since so many of these huge gas-guzzlers were American-made, it gave the domestic automobile industry a false sense of hope and security. Now all that's left are bailouts and the Hummer.

Think of Cash for Clunkers as a "bailout for the people". The benefit being that it will lead people to buy new cars that are more fuel-efficient than their previous models. Yes, that makes the environment happy, but it also encourages people drive a lot more and clog up highways more and get in wrecks more and demonstrate what terrible drivers they are more. Soon though, once everyone has a chance to take their new cars out to see the stimulus money in action, there will be some kind of hip, fun way to encourage people to leave their new cars in the garage and ride the subway. After all, isn't it supposed to be more "green" to use public transportation? What better spokesman to remind you of this than Joe Biden?

Proponents of CARS will argue that this plan is designed so that the poor, huddled masses that can't afford a new car can now experience the joy of a new car that also helps the environment. While some of these less-fortunate people drive old "clunkers" (it's so nice to potentially hear your Federal Government call your car a clunker), many drive small economy-size cars that are really terrible, but happen to be fuel-efficient enough not to qualify because it takes so little gas to power a 1.2-liter engine that only generates 110 horsepower. In the eyes of the government, your 1989 Toyota Tercel with a missing mirror, duct tape bumper and a stripped transmission is NOT a clunker. However, if a few years ago you insisted on a having a gigantic SUV to traverse the suburbs, you're in luck!

Sorry, to be repetitive, but it's just so nice for the tax-paying public to shoulder the cost of bailing out people that made selfish (not to mention, ultimately ill-advised) decisions. Many of the same people that were outraged about the actions of AIG and the sort are probably all to happy to get some easy money for their automobile that doesn't really have any market value in a world where gasoline costs more than $1.50 a gallon. It really does seem like politics is nothing more than an elaborate system of deciding who takes responsibility for whose actions. The answer is more and more becoming that everyone takes responsibility for everyone's actions because that's fair. Ask yourself what the definition of "fair" is and see if it aligns with everything that is going on. If it does and you're happy with the thought, then see how this definition applies to other aspects of your life. Eventually there's a disconnect.

Maybe this opinion on Cash for Clunkers is a little one-sided and the true benefits are being overlooked for the sake of a truly stirring blog entry. Also, maybe not everyone can meet the eligibility requirements, despite driving an 11-year old car built for performance, not fuel efficiency. What a load.