it's interesting to have someone over the holidays this year, definitely a dramatic shift from years past. (speaking of definitely, why can no one spell it? you take definite, and then you throw an -ly on the end. it's pretty basic, there's no "A" sound involved whatsoever. i think more people spell it incorrectly than properly, and it irks me. definite+ly. not "definately", i'm not even sure where you got that from, where does the "a" sound fit in? it's definitely and ridiculous, ri, from "ridicule". come on now people.) i'll report back on how this holiday stuff goes. i've always kind of been the lone wolf who was keeping people on the side (conveniently being single for the holidays) and being in closer relationships with my friends than with any female, so to have something that i'd consider to be real for once is a surprisingly welcome, change. along that same line, the weirdest thing about dating someone new when you're 23/24 is the history. like, both of us reference exes a little too often for the other's liking, but it's honestly hard not to. it's just odd that we're only 24, i can't even imagine what its like for people with kids and ex spouses and such things, that's got to be effing crazy and involving some serious lowering of standards. it's just interesting to ponder is all.
so the much hyped "Mitchell Report" was released the other day. was anyone surprised by a single name that they provided us with? honestly, does the fact that Roger "Grizzly Bear" Clemens may have used steroids surprise anyone? if it does, you're either blind or retarded. i'll give you three tell-tale signs as to how you figure out if someone was on steroids or not. 1.) they put on more than 10 pounds of muscle in one off-season. it's just not possible to bulk up in a few months, have you ever tried to lift and put on muscle? it takes like years, and complete dedication. you don't just work out in the offseason and add 25 pounds of raw muscle. 2.) they get dramatically better in one year. i.e. brady anderson, sammy sosa, luis gonzalez. they go from 20 homers to 50, i mean, this is obvious. 3.) they improve after their early 30s. you don't just "get better" at age 36. i mean, if no one can remember properly, Clemens' ass was washed up 10 years ago and Boston let him walk. all of a sudden he's winning Cy Youngs in 2 out of 3 seasons in Toronto and New York? yeah. that makes sense, that's not suspicious at all. at least barry stayed good the whole time and just changed his game. what's Clemens' excuse? basically every name that was released was walking around like a comic book character throughout the late 90's/early 2000s. can you remember how ripped people like Benito Santiago, Gary Sheffield, Pudge Rodriguez, Juan Gonzalez, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire got seemingly overnight? you don't just put on 20 pounds of muscle in an offseason and then somehow remain completely swoll in september after 140 games, it's not possible unless you're somehow finding time to work out 3 hours a day. oh, that's right, steroids make you recover faster. but honestly, going back and adding astericks and punishing this person or that person makes zero sense. none whatsoever. if you take away Bonds' and Clemens' achievements, whose are considered legitimate? is Kevin Brown's cy young legitimate? are Frank Thomas and Albert Belle's stats legitimate? i say the fix is to just label the era from 1990-2005 the "steroid era" and just call it that. there's no way to decisively prove who was doing this or that, so just label it a historical anomaly and let bygones be bygones. its not like everyone is going to just up and forget. i mean, we all know that babe ruth was fat and that ty cobb was a racist prick, and that happened before tv and the internet, so how are people just going to forget that bonds and clemens were on roids? hitters were doing it and hitting more homeruns, but they were doing it off of pitchers that were juicing to get a few extra MPH on their fastball, so who's the bigger cheater? who can know these things. a witchhunt isn't doing anything of purpose, so let it slide. it's not like people aren't going to remember that McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, whoever were on roids. people played in the "dead ball era" before Ruth, and they played in the "steroid era", and that's that. people played against only white players, and people played in an integrated game, and people played in the international game like today. sounds simple enough to me, everyone just gets to move on. besides, i'm still not sure how steroids gives you a competitive advantage if everyone's doing it? once again, i'm going to rant and rave about the true competitive disadvantage in baseball, the differences in spending between the teams that is somehow allowed. doesn't anyone else think it's bullshit that whenever a big name comes up the same teams are always in the discussion? it's always Boston, NY, NY, LA, LA and the Cubs. great, really fair system. that's how it should be. you've got 30 teams, 25 of which actually have to develop talent, and 5 of which can buy whatever they want. really fair (oh, the yankees use steroids too). we should probably all be after some guys who used the juice to hit bombs but never won anything rather than the blatant fact that Boston bought the 2007 world series by having the 2nd highest payroll in baseball. look at the teams that made the AL (real league) playoffs this year. Yankees, Red Sox, Angels. (3 highest payrolls in the league) and the Indians, who have the best GM in baseball and the deepest farm system, i.e. one actual team, and 3 that have the opportunity to sign whoever they want. investigate that shit Selig, it has a much more drastic impact on the competitive state of the game itself, if you disagree, you probably have a double digit IQ.
so apple managed to keep another customer, they made me pretty effing happy this week. well, my hard drive crashed, AGAIN, which of course, given that it was exam week at the time, utterly infuriated me. but, the dude fixed my shit for free, despite the fact that i'm not on warranty, upgraded my hard drive, and replaced my top cover and keyboard for the price of on the house. it's awesome when big corporations actually treat you like a human being. nice job apple, i'm sticking with you and completely ignoring the fact that i've fried two hard drives in 19 months, as apples gracious behavior has put a positive gloss on the whole situation.
isn't "getting old" weird? i feel like seriously, in the span of a few months, i got old. like, i honestly almost don't enjoy going out anymore and getting shitfaced. 1.) it's expensive. 2.) i feel like absolute ass the next day and 3.) it really isn't as much fun as it used to be. i don't know, something about undergrad and the captive audience of thousands really added a lot to the experience, i feel like I'm over it, it's like work to scrounge people up to booze with, b/c if you have fun by yourself when you're drinking then, well, you've got a problem my friend. its no fun when you aren't going out w/ people. i'd rather talk to/chill with jules than go to a bar and try to force it, winding up out a weeks' worth of lunches b/c you decided it was a good idea to buy a round of cherrybombs. i mean granted, for a special occasion, you can still count me in, but where it was once a law that i was boozing every friday/saturday no matter what, i feel like lately, I'm boozing once a week tops, and raging only on rare occasions. i need a crowd people.
maybe this is hypocritical in light of the last paragraph, but i love new years. (well, maybe not, since you know there's a crowd involved in new years) new years is my #1 favorite party day of the year. i feel like it's important, hell, necessary to ring in the new year with a bang, and i love doing it. new years requires shots, in large quantities, and general revelry of the highest sort. my goal, every year, is to not remember the ball drop but somehow be up until 4. the new years when i cannot rage to ring it in is the new years that i don't want to be a part of. so, here's hoping that new years 2008 is a fun one.
ah, yes, candy. why does 94% of the candy that exists exist? like, who keeps making it? i feel like out of candy that i know about/see people eat, there are like 4 or 5 popular choices, snickers, m&ms, skittles, kit kats, reeses cups and starbursts. but how many shitty candybars exist? and who buys them? like, for instance, the UC alumni association put candy in our mailboxes at school with a little "good luck with finals" note, and provided us with butterfingers and milky way. what the fuck? who's eating butterfingers OR milky way, let alone both? a butterfinger somehow combines peanut butter, crunch, and chocolate, things i'm find of, and makes it taste like shitty orange chalk. nice job, you should probably still be in business for making that quality product. and what's up with a milky way? it's like they forgot the best part of the snickers and decided to try and pull a fast one on us and sell it anyway, it's even in the same color wrapper. i even opened my milky way and took a bite, thinking it was a snickers b/c i didn't look that closely, having (wrongly) concluded that a candy bar of that shape in a brown wrapper would actually be good. and those are just 2 of the gamut of shitty candy bars that are out there, hoping to trick unsuspecting gas station customers into wasting a buck. 3 Musketeers? what's in that? shitty dried pudding? good job, genius. baby ruth? great, it looks like a turd and is really, really hard. what the hell, give me a snickers already. nutrageous, heath, whatchamacallit? whatchamaretarded? there are people that are actually trying to peddle these things to the masses. nestle crunch bars, hershey bars, they have places, in baking items/as part of other desserts, but no one is just buying a hershey bar and snacking on that shit. at least no one that doesn't have a subscription to collier's. i don't know if the powers that be don't know how shitty these products are or if they don't care, but something has to be done.
but ok kiddos, have a merry christmas, all presents can be sent directly to me, inquire for mailing address.
