Mailbag, Episode III: Mailbag With A Vengeance

So it's been a little while. A lot has happened, kind of. It's turned into 2012, it's been 60 degrees in February, people pretended that Tom Brady wasn't good and Eli Manning was, Jeremy Lin destroyed the internet, Whitney Houston died, "Bonny Bear" trended on twitter and the world inched closer to its inevitable demise. Did they start handing out driver's licenses to developmentally delayed people? Call me crazy, but I feel like drivers are actually getting worse. The other day a stoplight was out at a moderately busy intersection near my house, and you'd have thought the damn apocalypse happened. Everyone stared at each other for 40 seconds until they all suddenly went at the EXACT SAME TIME. How do you not know that in the absence of a functional stoplight the intersection becomes a 4 way stop? Go one at a time, follow the person to your left. Come on now.

All is not bleak on planet earth though... I'm here with more nonsense to waste my time and maybe yours on. How productive and grown up of me.


Why does Jeremy Piven look younger now (2012) than he did in PCU (1994)?

















This is a good damn question, one that I've often pondered myself. Clearly hair plugs, Rogaine, Hair club for Men, or another hair recovery treatment is part of the solution, the dude on the left is about 2 years from looking like George Costanza while the dude on the right is a dude with a big forehead... and black hair all of a sudden. It really is pretty remarkable though... while I would say the dude on the right DOES look SLIGHTLY older, they absolutely went to high school together at the very least. Considering there are 18 chronological years separating the two pictures, it seems possible that Jeremy Piven may have sold his soul to the devil or other such shenanigans in order to escape the ravages of time. Jeremy Piven was born in 1965.. making him 29 in the picture on the left, and looking 32ish, and making him 47 in the picture on the right, and looking 34ish. So somehow Piven aged faster than normal through his 20s but then saw his aging process slow WAY down and he's spent the last two decades trying to look like Joe Rogen while not actually aging at all. Good for you, Droz.


Who are the best comedic characters currently on television? How do they compare to the best comedic characters ever to appear on television?

I think the 5 greatest comedic characters of all time, in some order, are George Costanza, Lucy Ricardo, Cliff Huxtable, Fred Sanford and Archie Bunker. Eric Cartman and Homer Simpson are right there as well, but in my honest opinion, I think you have to give some additional credit to live-action characters as opposed to animated characters. These characters are great both because they are all hilarious and because ever single one of them changed TV forever and created infinitely imitated types that are utterly impossible to recreate.

I think the five greatest comedic currently on TV are, from 5-1:
5. Frank Reynolds, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
4. Larry David Curb Your Enthusiasm
3. Abed Community
2. Ron Swanson Parks and Recreation
1. Eric Cartman South Park

I'd say the fundamental difference between comedies today and the great comedies of old is that just about every show has a vastly expanded scope from your traditional sitcom. The ensembles just continue to grow, meaning that an individual character has much less lifting to do than he or she might have in years past. (Yes, I recognize that I said Homer Simpson was one of the best of all time but didn't list him in my current top 5.. the Simpsons has been on for so long that it has outlived its own relevance, but he's undoubtedly an all time great character). So while comedies are much more willing to push the envelope and expand on what a comedy can actually DO or BE, individual characters are less important than they have been traditionally. The 5 characters I named as the greatest of all time all (except for arguably George) were at least 1/3rd of the focus of their respective shows.. outside of Larry David, none of the modern day 5 are. That, along with the fact that the introduction of cable television, the internet, Netflix and virtually limitless entertainment options has ushered in an era or compartmentalized society where nothing has the universal following that the Cosby Show or Cheers or I Love Lucy or popular shows of years gone by, means that characters in the past had a much larger impact on society as a whole and thus influence.


Is Les Miles the dumbest Coach in college football history? If not, who is?

Les Miles is the dumbest coach in college football history. By a long shot. He's won one title despite a legendary run of talent and has lost far more games with his idiotic coaching moves than he's won. A 10 year old who has played more than 5 games of Madden could coach LSU to 10 wins. Saban did the heavy lifting of turning LSU into a powerhouse, Miles just needs to use the booster and recruiting connections to keep the talent coming in.


How far back in time would you have to go to be the world's top Scientific and Medical mind?

This is a great question.. one that I've often pondered myself. I'm tempted to say 1850, but I think I may have to go back a little further. I think I can comfortably say that if I went to 1750, I would be the world's greatest scientific mind. I could duplicate the famous experiments of Louis Pasteur, Ben Franklin, and others to prove the existence of microbes, electricity, and the like.. invent the hot air balloon (first flight wasn't until 1783), invent rifling for firearms (it was not commonly done until the 19th century), anticipate the theories of plate tectonics, Mendellian genetics and evolution, use my knowledge of astronomy to claim discoveries of galaxies, nebulas and the like, revolutionize animal taxonomy, invent vaccination, revolutionize public health and aid in the nascent development of steam power (I wouldn't claim being able to invent it directly because of my not being mechanical in the least). I could probably discover a number of elements as well. So at any point prior to 1800-ish I would have been the world's foremost mind by a long shot. After, as well, but I wouldn't be able to have the same revolutionary impact due to my scientific training being limited by being lazy in college and deciding I'd rather take classes where I could fart out A papers the night before than do labs and equations and what not.


What is really appropriate to carry in a wallet?

I'd say the key to knowing what should be carried in a wallet can be summed up as so: Portability, Necessity, Frequency. (PNF?) Let me explain. Portability: the item should be small and easily fit within the confines of a traditional wallet. If it doesn't fit the bill, take it out. Carrying the item around in a wallet shouldn't damage the item itself or its neighbors within the wallet. Best examples: money, laminated cards of all sorts. Necessity. Is this an item you absolutely NEED from time to time? I.e., driver's license, insurance card, atm card, gym membership card, subway club card, etc. Lots of people carry around random accumulated shit in their wallets. Coupons, receipts, expired cards, etc. If you don't need it, throw it out. Words to live by. Even if you do want to keep the receipt to whatever, why is it in your wallet? Throw it in a drawer, a folder, whatever... I doubt it needs to be on your person. Frequency. A cousin of necessity, but we all know that everything in a wallet isn't something that you absolutely NEED, so you'll inevitably have some stuff in there that you use, but you don't NEED. For those items, consider how often you use them. If it's less than every month or so, take it out and put it in a safe place. Your wallet should be thin enough that everything is easy to find and so that it isn't a brick you're lugging around in your back pocket. #ProTip


How many national titles will Urban Meyer win at OSU?

OSU fan-dom has been abuzz since the prodigal son and coaching star Urban Meyer was announced as head coach in early December... and with good reason. This guy turned around BGSU, led Utah to a BCS game (and made Alex Smith the #1 pick) and led Florida to 2 national titles while keeping the Gators and the NFL stocked with NFL talent. OSU emerged from a scandal that cost the 2nd most successful coach in school history his job with an UPGRADE at head coach.. pretty remarkable. To do this and snag one of the two or three biggest names in the profession is nothing short of game changing. Several other additional thoughts: 1.) He's coming into coach who may be the most talented spread QB he's ever coached in Braxton Miller, 2.) In 60 days he assembled a top 5 recruiting class, tops in the conference, despite a bowl ban and the team being coached by Adam Sandler prior to December, 3.) He's always been a tremendous recruiter, and should be able to bring the best raw talent OSU's ever had in year to year. Throw in the fact that Wisconsin is currently coached by a bridge troll, Michigan by a hungry hungry hippo and Penn State has rape-y showers and the B1G is Meyer's oyster. Meyer signed a 7 year contract, however it's hard to imagine him staying for the full 7 years.. in addition, the last 6 or so years have seen the SEC become a hotbed of straddling rules violations while assembling prodigious talent, so dynasties are difficult to put together, especially as long as Saban is in Alabama. However, Saban and Meyer have proved themselves over the past decade to be head and shoulders above every other coach in the country. So let's say Meyer stays at OSU for 6-7 years, including this coming season (bowl ban :(..), and one must assume that this will be the WORST class he signs at Ohio State. I will realistically say that it is difficult to imagine that Urban Meyer's run at Ohio State ends with less than 2 titles. OSU hasn't been THAT far away for the last 5 or 6 years.. Urban may be just what the Dr ordered.


Has the supposed golden age of television diluted the quality of films making it to the big screen? Some may scoff at the question, but look at the strength of dramatic television over the past ten years...The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, BSG, Boardwalk Empire, Deadwood, Lost, FNL...then look at the nominees for the "Best Motion Picture - Drama" category at this year's Golden Globes (The Descendants, The Help, Hugo, The Ides of March, Moneyball, War Horse). I have only seen one of these films (The Descendants) and I actually loved Midnight in Paris...but I watch the trailers for the rest of those films and have no desire to see them. The Descendants was decent, but I know I would pick a new episode of Mad Men or Breaking Bad any day of the week. Are great writers passing on the glam of the silver screen for a format that gives them more flexibility in storytelling? I figured you may like to weigh in on the topic.

While we're undoubtedly in the golden age of television, I don't really think it's a fair comparison.. apples and oranges, or at least oranges and tangerines. Dramatic television gains from long form storytelling, and shows like "The Wire", "Deadwood", "Breaking Bad", and others, are undeniably great, but I truly believe that a good standalone film has more to offer than a similarly sized sample of a good TV show. This was a down year for movies, to be certain.. I think the studios were scared off by the twin towers of Transformers 3 and Harry Potter 8 and decided to postpone a lot until 2012. You really should check out Moneyball.. it's quite good. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is well worth a watch as well. I haven't seen Hugo yet but will (it's on the IMDB 250 after all), and that's in a down year. I don't think there's been any sort of migration to the small screen, I just think the parameters of what a television show can BE have changed so much to allow the gulf in both prestige and art to be narrowed and given more people an opportunity to fully express themselves. Cable surely helps as well. Even shows cancelled after a single season have 10+ hours of story to work with. The longest movie has no more than 3.5. Over that much time, you have more opportunity to tell stories, and more leeway with what you're going to do and the quality of what you're doing. A great film sizzles front to back.. there hasn't been a season of any TV show yet that sizzles throughout, in my honest opinion. The run of something like "The Wire" is more than 60 hours of storytelling. That's more runtime than the total non-documentary works of Martin Scorsese, who's been working for nearly 50 years. Would you choose the Wire over the cumulative works of Scorsese? I wouldn't. So while the last 10 years in TV have seen greatness, the last 10 years of film has given us the Lord of the Rings trilogy, City of God, Children of Men, The Departed, There Will Be Blood, The Dark Knight, No Country for Old Men, Pan's Labyrinth and so on.. greatness. So I don't think there's been an impact.. if anything, by becoming a serious storytelling medium, the small screen has enhanced the big screen by pushing and providing a proving ground for talent.