The Inaugural Edition of the Greatest Mailbag on the Web

The Brenner Bag I.

So I'm a big fan of the website mailbag. Whether it's done by Bill Simmons or Drew Magary over at Deadspin, a good mailbag is one of the more enjoyable website reads out there, along the author to spout off on his own nonsense while being guided somewhat by the reader. Best of both worlds! Ideally I'll be doing one once every month or so. I'm planning on picking up the blogging schedule here... at least I feel like writing is somewhat productive, unlike most of the nonsense I spend my time doing. So hopefully this one is at least somewhat good, right? Here goes nothing.


BD: Question regarding War Machine's origins in Iron Man 2:

I was watching the two Iron Man movies again last night, and all through Iron Man 2 War Machine was bugging me for the following three reasons:

1. Jarvis and the rest of Tony Stark's system put him in the Iron Man armor when he's ready to suit up. Why did it put the Iron Man armor on James Rhodes when he is clearly not Iron Man? We know that his system is pretty locked down to only allow people to do things they are authorized to do (see Christine Everhart touching one of the panels the morning after shacking up with Stark and being rejected by Jarvis), but we are supposed to think he didn't put those same security checks into outfitting the most dangerous weapon known to man?

2. In the first movie, we learn that the suit has an icing problem at high altitudes. Stark tells Jarvis to build the suit with a gold alloy that will allow for better temperature management while keeping the weight distribution correct. So, the suits he is building are coming off the assembly line gold and then applying some "hot rod red" paint job. Why does Tony have a silver-colored suit? Did he build a gold one and paint it silver or is this one of the old suits with the icing problem? If the latter, War Machine has a major weakness in future battles.

3. This is my biggest problem with the War Machine armor. Up to the point that James Rhodes steals the armor, these things have been built solely for Tony Stark and are powered by a miniaturized arc reactor that goes about six inches deep in his chest. So, the suit is aligned to power up off of an arc reactor positioned exactly like Stark's. When Rhodes suits up, why doesn't the arc reactor in the armor crush his chest and impale him six inches deep? Does James Rhodes just happen to have a very concave chest?

The Iron Man flicks, while exceedingly watchable and just an all-around "good time", aren't exactly the most plausible things out there. The strength of Robert Downey Jr. as the titular hero certainly glosses over a lot of the more preposterous aspects of the screenplay. I've had similar problems with War Machine's origins myself... it really is a rather large plot hole and problem that just gets completely glossed over. #3 is indeed the biggest problem, and the most difficult to explain away... but here goes nothing. Regarding #1, it would seem to me that events in the films seem to suggest that Tony's inner circle (Pepper, Rhodey and Happy Hogan) have pretty unimpeded access to the Stark mansion, and are on Jarvis' "good side". Christine Everhart's sexy Vanity Fair reporter on the other hand, is an intruder, and treated as such. Pepper Potts shows up more than once in Tony's lab uninvited, and Rhodey is the one who discovers Tony in his lab towards the end of the first movie, suggesting he's been there before and is a welcome guest. As far as gaining access to the Iron Man armor, it seems as though Rhodey would have been one of the few who would have been able to get by Stark security and Jarvis at the point that he does in the second film, and Tony's not exactly in any position to enforce security protocol at the time that Rhodey actually gains access to the gray Iron Man armor he uses to fight Tony at Tony's birthday party. As far as #2 goes, it appears that what becomes the War Machine armor is indeed the Mark II suit that Tony builds upon his return from Afghanistan. This armor, on its first flight, wound up icing over as Tony attempted to break SR-71's altitude record, resulting in him falling back to earth after his electronics froze over. Tony fixes this problem on the Mark III suit by adjusting the alloy used in constructing the suit, allowing for greater temperature variance. Therefore, regarding the Mark II armor that Rhodey takes, it would seem that at the moment Rhodey takes it following Tony's birthday party, the Mark II suit would be susceptible to the freezing problem. So stay out of the stratosphere, Rhodey! However, based on what we see of Hammer industries in Iron Man 2, it does appear that Justin Hammer has SOME skill as a developer.. obviously he's not the revolutionary genius that Tony Stark is, but he's not completely inept either. Therefore, it could be that when the Mark II suit is taken by Rhodey to the Air Force and the armor is modified by Hammer Industries into War Machine, Hammer and Vanko came up with an alternative solution to the icing issue. Perhaps they decided on a heating system to defeat the ice build-up. Perhaps they insulated the suit's electronics or decided on a different solution when turning the sleek gunmetal gray Mark II suit into the gray and black War Machine armor. Pure speculation on my part, but it seems that a designer like Vanko, seemingly the (almost) peer of Stark would be able to come up with a solution of his own. Switching alloys isn't the only solution to icing, or all high-altitude craft would be made of a gold alloy. As I mentioned earlier, #3 is the biggest issue. It's clear that Stark is a genius, but that the true genius of the Iron Man suit design is the miniaturized arc cold fusion reactor technology. It's unclear how precisely the suit hooks up to and interacts with the arc reactor embedded in Tony' chest, but you can see the reactor glowing through the armor, which leads me to believe the suit features a transparent covering directly over where the arc reactor is located in Tony's chest. Indeed, if you take a look at that almost profile view on the movie picture, it looks like Iron Man's chest protrudes in the chest area, thus suggesting that there may plausibly be room for an extra-body power source. Given that the arc reactor built by Tony Stark fits comfortably in his hand, it can't be more than a couple of inches deep. The only plausible explanation for Rhodey's being able to successfully pilot the Mark II armor is that Stark subsequently went back and built extra arc reactors and that the suit exists so as to be piloted whether the arc reactor is in-chest or outside of the body. Whether the armor was originally built with this in mind (seems somewhat plausible, as Tony wouldn't have known how permanent his health condition was at the time of building the Mark II armor) or subsequently modified following the events of the first film is uncertain, but it seems somewhat likely that the Iron Man suits are designed so that they can be powered by external or internal arc reactors. So, that seems to be the only plausible explanation for James Rhodes successfully accessing, piloting and taking the Mark II armor. I think typing that was the equivalent of having sex negative 7 times.


RL: How about rating and ranking the best rappers turned actors and movies starring rappers turned actors.

I like this question. It does appear, for whatever reason, that rappers like to try to transition to the acting game more than any comparable entertainment types. The list of rock and rollers who have successfully transitioned to acting is a rather short one, and while country singers have had more success, there haven't been any country singers become mega-stars like say, Will Smith or Mark Wahlberg. I guess it's somewhat logical, given that rappers succeed largely based on their charisma and stage presence, skills that, needless to say, transition rather well to the big screen. I'm going to do a top 3 and a bottom 3, with a couple of honorable mentions/people to watch.

Bottom 3:
3. Ice Cube. Nothing against the guy, I just think his flicks and acting style are complete garbage. And Ice, really, why are you making all of these cornball family flicks? It's pretty strange that the dude has any street cred left after all of the family flick nonsense he's been up to. The only reason he's not #1 is Boyz in the Hood and Friday. Past performances will win you some points 'round these parts. Being involved in the atrocious current Coors Light campaign is bad enough to get you notice.. making "Are We There Yet" and the like will score you HUGE negative points. And seriously, what's the deal with Coors Light commercials? Isn't beer EXACTLY as cold as the refrigerator it's put in? If you have a cold fridge, you probably have cold beer. Leave some Coors Light in your trunk all day and grab one. Bet you it's the grossest thing you've ever sipped.

2. Bow Wow. Do this dude even count as a rapper? I don't even know. I wasn't going to include him on this list because I didn't want to pick on a little kid, but then I looked him up and realized he was 24(!), that's plenty old enough to get mocked on the Internet. If he counts as a rapper, he's certainly pretty damn bad as an actor too. I haven't seen too many of his flicks, but I saw half of "Tokyo Drift" at the gym once, and it was just all-around garbage to the point that anyone involved should have their SAG membership revoked. A quick glance at the Internet shows that he's been up to an array of limited marketability "comedies" of dubious worth since, and yes.. the dude made "Like Mike". He just barely missed #1.

1. DMX. Dark man baby. This one hurt, because I'll always have a soft spot for DMX. He was the man when I was becoming a man and hanging out, listening to lots of rap, drinking beers on country roads and talking nonsense with other dudes. I still know approx. 9 billion too many DMX lyrics, and will definitely rap along whenever Earl Simmons is played within earshot. However, that doesn't change the fact that his (now direct-to-DVD) acting career was a blight on Hollywood and helped usher along the death of the 90's action flick heyday. In "Romeo Must Die", "Cradle 2 the Grave" and "Exit Wounds", DMX displayed stiff acting, zero charisma and a complete lack of any range or likability. Belly is halfway not awful though.. so he has that going for him. Now I hope he doesn't kill me for writing that. Your dogs are certainly not in the movies, D.

The top 3. Does Mark Wahlberg count? I'm going to say he counts... because Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch was definitely rap, and he was doing that before he was making movies and/or creating Entourage. So given that Marky Mark counts, here's the top 3.

3. Mos Def. I believe Mos Def has the most potential of any rapper turned actor. He shows tremendous range and a certain sensitivity on screen. I would in no way be surprised if Mos Def brought home a best supporting Oscar in the future. In flicks as varied as the Italian Job, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 16 Blocks and Be Kind Rewind, Mos Def has shown a willingness to take chances and try different genres and character types on for size... definitely admirable. This #3 ranking is probably more for potential than anything else... but I've found that in everything I've seen him in, more than being a liability, Mos Def has more than held his own and actually been a strength. So kudos, not only are you one of the most innovative and legit MC's, you're also a decent actor.

2. Mark Wahlberg. While his rapping credentials may be questionable... (without including him, Common would move up to #3), he is undoubtedly one of Hollywood's stars. He's also a complete enigma to me. I don't know if he just has horrible management or what, but for every great role (Boogie Nights, Three Kings, The Departed) he has some real head-scratchers (the Tim Burton Planet of the Apes abortion, Four Brothers, Max Payne, The Happening). The dude is clearly an above-average actor, and given the right script, right surrounding cast and right director, he can be great, but he's not quite the type of dude who can carry a flick alone. His circuitous route to Hollywood stardom (underwear model, "rapper", actor) makes me laugh, and I'm sure Marky Mark is ashamed... all the way to the bank. White, black, red, brown, feel the vibration.

1. Will Smith. Could it have honestly been anyone else? Arguably, this dude is the biggest movie star on the planet. There's no doubt he's a talented, charismatic SOB.. but I wonder if he's ever going to win an Oscar. He just doesn't take the necessary chances or gutsy, demanding roles. He's undoubtedly strong in pretty much everything (We won't mention the cinematic spray-fart that is "Wild Wild West") and the kind of dude that everyone from little kids to 25 year old dudes to moms like, but pretty much every role is "safe". There were stories all over Hollywood about how desperately Tarantino wanted him for "Django Unleashed", QT's slave revenge saga, and Smith wouldn't take it, out of fear of the controversial material. While there's no doubt something to be said for looking out for your brand, there's also something to be said for pursuing greatness in your brand. If Will Smith was an NFL RB, he'd run out of bounds on long runs. But either way, he's a huge, huge star.. was responsible for one of the most beloved TV shows of the '90's, and made some catchy ass corny rap songs. He's now exploiting his children to make even more money and being a secret scientologist. Kudos, Will.

Honorable mentions: Tupac Shakur - I truly believe he would have been an amazing actor had he lived. A true tragedy robbing both rap and cinema of his talent. Common - one of my favorite MCs has proven to have a knack for the screen, although it's too soon to tell. Queen Latifah - I don't like anything she stands for, but there's no doubt that she's a HUGE star. LL Cool J - Surprisingly solid in a lot of things. My personal favorite role was "Any Given Sunday".

So that's my take on the rap/acting game. Kind of a cop out including Marky Mark, but dude WAS a rapper (kind of).


JRC: Each of the first three season of Mad Men built up to a specific moment in history (i.e. Kennedy/Nixon election, Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK assassination), and the writers weaved their storylines around those events. I have always enjoyed how the writers included these major events in the storyline, but never made them the focal point of the storyline. In other words, there was not some awful CGI scene where Don Draper was standing on the street in Dallas in 1963, and we see Kennedy get shot in the background. Now we definitely see how the characters respond to these events - which makes complete sense for a character driven show - but it is all in the context of the characters, and is used to show us a little bit more about these people (not to make a social commentary on the event). Well, all of us that watch the show know that there was no comparable event in Season four (which was still just as great as the other seasons). My question is: If you were writing season four of Mad Men, what historical event would you have build the season around, and how would you have incorporated the event into the storyline? 


Awesome question.. and I'm sure that Weiner and the writers struggled with this one. I know that Weiner has said that he intends to end "Mad Men" in 1970, so given that Season 3 ended in late 1963, we're kind of boxed in to the '64-'65 time frame for Season 4 if you plan on having more than a season or 2 after Season 4. While the 60's were undoubtedly a tumultuous and important decade... 1964 and 1965 were basically the calm before the storm. Trouble was brewing, but it hadn't boiled over yet. Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, but that was hardly a momentous event at the time and it wasn't exactly something that would have registered with the mostly white and predominantly upper-class characters of the Mad Men universe. Indeed, the most important cultural events of 1964-65 are probably Beatlemania and the rise of Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali as cultural icon, and both of these events are referenced heavily in Season 4. The Tulkin Gulf Incident took place in August 1964, and ultimately led to military build-up in Vietnam, but the Vietnam war didn't become heated and controversial on the massive scale we think of today until '67-'68. The Civil Rights movement is heating up as well, but, again, not to a level that would impact the largely white upper class cast of Mad Men in a momentous way, not yet. '68 saw the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., the Tet Offensive and the realization that Vietnam was not going as well as advertised, and '69 saw Woodstock and the Moon Landing. So the writers are in a difficult spot. If you intend on ending the show in 1970, skipping ahead to 1968 for Season 4 means you either squeeze several seasons into the last year and a half of the decade, or you only have one more season remaining, which I'm sure AMC (or the fans...) wouldn't be happy about. So the writers, trapped in a (comparatively) quiet period of the decade, wisely chose to have the tumult take place within the characters' lives, rather than imposed on them from the outside. But, you didn't ask for a history lesson. I suppose what I would have done is have Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce have a major military contractor (say.. a helicopter manufacturer) for a client, and have the characters closely follow unfolding events in Vietnam. (The US had military advisors in-country from 1950 onwards, but LBJ ramped up participation starting in '63 and culminating with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and subsequent retaliatory airstrikes and resolution approving military action) So what you could do is have the season end with the US bombing North Vietnam following the Gulf of Tonkin incident and our Sterling Cooper Draper Price staffers celebrating because their military client was about to get a whole lot bigger. Of course, we the viewers would know that the last thing these characters should be doing is celebrating, but hindsight is 20/20 after all. That puts you in fall '64, and would be a neat little way to wrap things up in a similar fashion to the other seasons.



JT: How many questions do you have?

I have a shit-ton of questions. Why does corn, despite being chewed, come out intact on the other end? Why did Wendy's raise the $2.99 combo prices to $3.29? That's such an ugly number in comparison. Why do guys in wildly successful bands act like high school girls and refuse to get along despite being ridiculously wealthy and the lessons of history that suggest they'll never meet similar levels of success and wind up reuniting in 20 years when no one cares about them any more? How do all of my clients who have no jobs and no money afford to smoke a pack a day? How do guys who wear pre-frayed ballcaps and boat shoes get hot girlfriends? How are there so many legitimately beautiful women in porn? Why is the American political process so goddamn broken? What did people do for entertainment before the internet? Probably lots of drinking, right?

I could go on all night, but I won't. Depending on your counting method I have between 7-12 questions for the mailbag.



Who's your favorite Stark? Tony? Ned? Robb? Explain.

This one was submitted anonymously... but I love it, so I'll gladly dive in. So this is basically an Iron Man vs. Game of Thrones question. Tony Stark, of course, is the billionaire genius/playboy/arms manufacturer protagonist of the "Iron Man" comic book and movie series of Marvel comics fame. House Stark, of Winterfell, of the Seven Kingdoms of the Iron Throne of Westeros, Warden of the North, is the most ancient noble house of Westeros, and Ned Stark is the partiarch and Lord of House Stark at the open of "Game of Thrones" the show and the book. He has various living family members, Catelyn, Robb, Bran, Rickon, Sansa, Arya and Benjen, of which I will eliminate all outright excepting Robb from consideration. However, Ned being daddy, and being on a TV show where according to the complicated rules of TV shows the relationship between characters is always depicted via height, I'll go with Ned. (Have you noticed that? In real life, approx 85% of people are taller than their parents, right? Excepting situations where say, Dad is a foot taller than Mom, I'd say most people are on average, 4-6 inches taller than the average height of their parents. Not so on TV shows. Parents are almost always taller than their children, no matter what the age. Fresh Prince? Carlton is about 8 inches shorter than Uncle Phil. Modern Family? 17 year old Hailey is a solid 6 inches shorter than BOTH of her parents. That's literally never happened before, but I digress) So basically, this comes down to Tony Stark vs. Ned Stark. Let's see. Tony Stark is a wisecracking hedonist who has a moral awakening following a near death experience and realization of the horrors of war and that his weapons systems are being used by foreign terrorists. He has a quick mind and a wit that's nearly as quick, and is unafraid to disarm any situation with force that he's unable to disarm with a smile and quip. Ned Stark is a devoted husband and stern, loving liege Lord and father who is devoted to his King and to his Honor. He believes that a lord should carry out his own justice and his beloved by those who serve him. He's soft spoken and worn by the weight of his duty and responsibility but skilled with a sword and one of the most respected men in all of the seven kingdoms. However, he is far too honorable for the machinations at court, where he finds himself outmanuevered by those who are unencumbered by honor and notions of fair play, who exploit Ned's devotion to honor again and again during the events of "Game of Thrones". Due to Ned's fatal, tragic flaw, I must say that Tony Stark is my favorite Stark.. simply because a fatal flaw will always come back to bite you. Even if your fatal flaw is as virtuous as being too honorable.



AM: I always think it is weird/awesome when popular products are co-branded with others or just sold outside their usual category. In fact I often end up buying the co-branded product when I would never have bought the original. I mean, 7up flavored Popsicles? YES. But 7up yours on your own, 7up. Wait I can buy Taco Bell salsa in the grocery store? I don't buy regular "restaurant style" Taco Bell lest my toilet be party to a red scare, but bring that salsa on. Holy fuck there is a Velveeta Sheels n Cheese that features Hormel bacon bits in it? If I could divine a way to make love to that unholy alliance it would already be done, and our children would feed the entire non-Muslim population of Africa. DiGiorno now sells cookies and pizza in the same box. Stoners everywhere calmly cool the fuck out and rejoice, man.

Keeping this in mind, what name brand products do you think are a match made in heaven and simply must be combined? Are there any fast food or restaurant staples you'd rub out a wax dart in aisle 3 (cleanup in aisle 3 btw) over if they ever popped up? Which combination would be most like to bring about the downfall of humanity? I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

I have thought about this far too often to be normal, and never really talked about it because I thought it was a uniquely "me" thing and far too weird and embarrassing to share publicly. Sort of like how when you first start jerking it you think you're a psychotic freak and no one would talk to you ever again if they knew what you were secretly doing until you find out that literally every person has been jerking like a mad man and between 2 and 3X more frequently than you. This realization isn't THAT liberating (nothing ever will be again), but it's in the same neighborhood.

At this point, it seems like the combinations that DO exist are way down the totem pole on the potential combinations. Like, Digiorno and breadsticks. Meh.. can already get that, Digiorno. Taco Bell salsa. Do they even HAVE salsa at Taco Bell? The awesome combinations that do exist seem to be in the realm of desserts. Actual Oreo ice cream (rather than the pretend Oreos that comprise most "cookies and cream" contraptions).. boner pants. Snickers Ice Cream Bars. Oreo breakfast bars. Golden graham breakfast bars. (with real marshmellows!) All of these things are that rare breed of awesome in that they're so awesome I avoid buying them because I know that actually purchasing any of these things will result in me eating the entire package within 18 hours of purchase and then wondering why my pants hardly fit.

But the untapped combinations have to be fast-food related, right? Come to think of it, the only real fast food presence you ever see in the Grocery store is frozen White Castle burgers... which is disgusting. If there's one thing I love in this world, it's Chipotle, (well, that's an exaggeration, but I do love Chipotle) and I fail to understand why they are doing no non in-restaurant sales of any kind. If you're in a Chipotle and take a look behind the counter, there's always some small Guatemalan gentleman grilling large, scrumptious-looking chunks of meat, which he then dices into small chunks and throws in one of those pans to be scooped into your burrito/bowl. (or taco, but if you're ordering those tacos, I hate you) Now granted, those diced pieces are necessary for optimized burrito consumption, there'd be too much biting/tearing/mess if otherwise, but I'm intrigued by the untapped potential of those giant sexy looking marinated chunks of meat that are so delicious diced up in my burrito. I want to throw one on a toasted bun with a little lettuce and mayo and take a bite of what may in fact be the most glorious sandwich on the planet. Can you imagine what a Chipotle slab of steak would taste like on a bun? Good lord I'm getting hungry just typing this. But herein is why restaurants don't do that stuff. I'm going to use the opportunity to buy frozen chunks of Chipotle meat for good, but the crazed ranch-obsessed redneck is not. Chipotle has to protect their brand and their perceived quality. If they start selling stuff in the freezer section, you're going to have people serving it up half-cooked and slathered in nacho cheese and a half-gallon of ranch and then suing Chipotle when they get salmonella from undercooked poultry and/or when they gain 600 lbs from eating 19,000 calorie meals. Boom, all of a sudden, Chipotle's brand is shot. Thanks, Cletus, for eating like an asshole. You'd better believe those dudes are out there. I ate Subway for lunch today and the dude with the sleeveless shirt and flame tattoos got more ranch than I've ever seen anyone get before slathered on his sub. The worker looked at him like he was an idiot when he asked for more. And that's when you're asking for it at a restaurant. Can you imagine what this dude is up to at home when he has control over the ranch supply? I want Wendy's to sell their hamburger patties too. I know they're frozen, I've seen a glimpse inside of a Wendy's freezer before... but god damn are they delicious. But, same deal. Wendy's can never be sure what the mouth-breathing public is going to do with their delicious patties should they be set loose on the world. People will be throwing 9 of them on a bun with 19 slices of provolone cheese and 38 slices of Bob Evans bacon and then blaming Wendy's on the 10 o'clock news when they collapse a deck or capsize a catamaran.

As far as combinations go, as you may or may not know, I love me some Smoothie King. Well, I need Chipotle to buy Smoothie King and put Smoothie Kings inside of their Chipotle locations so I can get my steak burrito with fajita peppers and black beans along with a Caribbean Way and die a happy man. This is do-able at the Kenwood Towne Center, where the Chipotle in the food court is separated only by a Chick Fil-A from a Smoothie King, but that would entail dealing with nightmare parking plus nightmare wading through 17 year olds plus nightmare long ass Chipotle line plus then nightmare dealing with traffic to get home to eat your now cold Chipotle and/or nightmare trying to find a table in that crowded-ass food court where 17 people will undoubtedly run into you while you're trying to enjoy exquisite food glory.

At the grocery store, the combination that would make me happiest would be if Smoothie King sold frozen ready to go Smoothie Mixes. I spend my time at home carrying out elementary school science fair experiments trying to concoct awesome Smoothies but failing epically at least 45% of the time. My culinary skill consists basically of baking a frozen pizza, so I need my hand held through these things. This is a massive potential revenue stream for Smoothie King. Just freeze all of the ingredients in a bag or whatever, you take it home, throw it in your blender, add juice or milk or whatever and boom. Smoothie King. At home. That's not even a combination, really... just an awesome idea.



PB:
1. You're an all-Ohio guy -- love the Indians, love OSU, went to Miami, UC, etc. Seem to be someone who has a good sports-fan ethos and would hate on anyone who arbitrarily picks a team to root for. How did you end up a Bills fans? If not a Browns fan, it seems the Lions would be the next logical choice for a Fo-town native.

2. I often refer to Bob Seger as "the poor-man's Bruce Springsteen" or the "Midwest's Bruce Springsteen." Knowing that any member of the Brenner family would be willing to give a kidney to Seger if need be, is this an accurate sentiment? Is there a Midwest v. East Coast rivalry here? If Bob Seger is from New Jersey, does he get the same level attention as the Boss?

I respect both of these questions very much, so, kudos. I shall address both in turn.

1. A complex set of circumstances led to me embracing the Buffalo Bills as my NFL team of choice. First, my father was a semi-psychotic Browns fan growing up, to the extent that destruction of property was not un-heard of. So growing up in the '80's, that era of "the Drive" and "the Fumble" so infamous on the banks of the Cuyahoga some of my earliest memories of football Sundays are slammed remotes, turned off TVs, stomping away and angry yelling. At the same time, I had an Aunt and Uncle who lived in Lewiston, New York, very near to Niagra Falls and Buffalo, New York. At the same time, the Bills had a dominant team, making 5 of 6 AFC title games and 4 straight Super Bowls, as well as having a top-2 team on the greatest sports video game of all time, Tecmo Super Bowl. Repeated visits to the Buffalo area and proximity to Bills-fandom through my aunt and uncle + psycho Browns fan at home + me being a little kid and little kids liking weird shit like "cool team colors" + the Bills being very good + Tecmo Super Bowl led to my brother and I liking the Bills. Plus, if you DIDN'T like Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Bruce Smith and co. you were definitely a communist. Or a Dolphins fan. As I progressed into young man-dom (I am of the belief that no one is really a "fan" of anything until they are an actual "person", which happens around ages 12-15 depending on the person), the Browns packed up and left Cleveland, leaving C-town with no NFL team, and the Bills being the dominant AFC CBS team broadcast in the Northwest Ohio area from '96-'98. Also, by the time I was old enough to have opinions on things, I was too obsessed with Ohio State to possibly root for any M*chigan-based team, even the hapless Lions. That was a contentious time in OSU fandom, being completely owned by M*chigan for basically a decade. By the time the Browns came back, I was a semi-man and a full-blown Bills fan. At that point, switching from the Bills would have been seen as a poser move from my own perspective. So, I'm not sure if I would approve if someone just explained that situation to me, but that's my explanation. I have said that when and if the Bills move from Buffalo to Toronto or LA or wherever, I'm going to switch to the Browns. So there's that. Plus there's the fact that the Bills' ineptitude over the past 12 years has been matched and exceeded only by that of the Browns and Lions.

2. I like to refer to Bobby Rock as "the midwest Springsteen" myself, and there's certainly a slight rivalry going on there. When you're from Ohio and meet people from out-of-state you're automatically on the defensive. For some reason or another, pretty much every other state thinks it behooves them to look down on Ohio, and that's Ohio's own fault. The state is too fractured to create a unified front. There's Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and several other semi-major urban areas, and all of these cities have a certain rivalry going on with all of the other. None of them have ever been big enough to completely dominate the other like happens in most states, so accordingly, Ohio doesn't present a unified front to the nation as a whole. Since Ohio's identity is so fractured, people mistake this fractured identity for a lack of an identity, and pounce accordingly. I've even heard people from Indiana and Kentucky and (gasp) M*chigan making fun of Ohio.. really? It's not even a discussion. So for Ohio at least, we deal with a sort of inferiority complex that leads to much conflict with the East Coast in particular. Despite the fact that Ohio boasts an impressive population (7th) and population density (10th, with only NY and Pennsylvania having both higher populations and population densities than Ohio), we are treated as a cultural backwater by anyone from somewhere that the coast-centric media has deemed "cool". So it's a Catch-22. Coast-based media deems place "cool", place then becomes "cool". Total chicken/egg situation. Now, granted, Seger isn't from Ohio, but he's sort of been adopted and his blue-collar ethos and worldview speaks to a large chunk of the Ohio-based population. If you're putting Bruce and Bob head to head, I think it goes without saying that Seger's pipes are far superior. Bruce is a superior songwriter and probably boasts a superior band (but Alto Reed vs. Clarence Clemons is a good debate..), but Bob's no slouch there either. Bob had his moment in the sun, but ultimately never caught fire nationally the way that Bruce did. Seger's songs don't have the same cultural/societal bent that Bruce's do, with Bob being more focused on life and love and pondering while Bruce takes more chances, but I'd argue that it's almost impossible to pretend that if Bob Seger was a native son of Jersey and embraced by the media center that is NYC like Bruce Springsteen, he'd have enjoyed a cultural significance similar to that of Bruce. Seger is 5 years older, but it's impossible to ignore that the midwest isn't exactly launching music careers like it used to. Back in the 50's when Detroit was the 3rd biggest city in the US and Cleveland was top 10 that Detroit to Cleveland corridor carried a lot more clout than it does today, when Detroit looks like the setting of the next Snake Plisskin movie and Cleveland is pretty damn depressing on its own accord. If the Black Keys were LA-based instead of Akron-based they may well be the biggest band on the planet. But, as any native son of the midwest can tell you, that's just how it goes. We've been downtrodden and overlooked for so long that it's just par for the course. Seger would have something wise and profound to say on the issue, but that's why he's an icon and I'm just a bored guy pontificating to the 13 people that actually read this far.