On first down, the Pats did the right thing. They ran. They got one yard, and the Colts called timeout.

On second down, they threw a pass. This was a horrible mistake, but they were bailed out by the fact that it worked. Gain of 7, timeout Colts.

Third down, they threw another pass. This was the horrible decision on which the game turned. A run is over 50% to convert the first down, game over. Plus, even if it fails, a run keeps the clock moving, and the Colts would have let the clock run to the 2 minute warning.

At that point, the spot of the ball on fourth down could have been reviewed, and the Patriots very well may have converted on the review.

The big mistake was not going for it fourth down. The big mistake was throwing on 2nd and 3rd downs. Going for it on fourth down was playing the percentages, as they were more likely to win with that strategy than with a punt. But the decision never should have had to have been made. Belichick should know better.

This morning I had an encounter with one of your kind, and beneath my genuine pity was my inner asshole wondering what the fuck she was thinking last night.

As you know, last night was Halloween, the best and only excuse for you to dress up as a slutty animal or as a slutty uniformed member of society whose uniform would not pass inspection.  Unfortunately, the young lady I encountered awkwardly on the elevator this morning did not heed the advice I am about to give you.  Halloween is not for slutting.

99% of the time, the walk of shame is embarrassing, especially on Sunday when you’re likely to see the church crowd.  The walk of shame dressed in your slutty costume is far worse, and guaranteed to lead to an awkward situation, like riding in an elevator with  me after I go grocery shopping because I’m craving bacon and I don’t have any bacon.  The point is, you can go home with a random guy on 51 weekends out of the year.  Go ahead.  It’ll be ok.  But if you do it on Halloween, you are making a mistake.

Ironically, you’re more likely to hook up on Halloween, because costumes are a natural aphrodesiac (trust me, it’s science).  That sucks for you.  But don’t be like Pippy Longstockings from this morning.  Keep it in your negligible pants.

You probably wouldn’t feel the  need to go home with some dude on Halloween if you just fucked more guys in general, but that’s a whole different issue.

Happy All Saints Day!!!

Predictably, these umpire mistakes have led to continued calls for baseball to extend instant replay beyond merely determining home runs.  However, the first of the 2 missed calls provides the precise argument for why baseball and instant replay do not mix.

On the play, Ryan Howard of the Phillies was ruled to have caught a soft line drive in the air, but replays showed that it bounced just before entering his glove.  The umpires incorrectly ruled the ball caught, which led to an inning-ending double play; however, the fact that there were still live runners gives us reason to question replay’s effectiveness.

In football, many plays cannot be challenged by replays.  The only events that can be challenged are events that ended a play or would have ended a play.  This is the trap in baseball.  On the Howard play, whether the catch was made or not, the play was still live.  In fact, Howard appears to head toward first base after making the play only to suddenly change course and make an off-balance throw to second.  Why?  He likely responded to the umpire’s signal, which was immediate.  Thus, the incorrect call by the umpire may  have influenced the events that happened after the disputed call.

Consider this.  If replay were allowed and the umpires agreed that the ball had hit the ground, what would the result be?  Howard appeared to be on his way to touching first base, which would have gotten the batter out, before he responded to the umpire (though, given the call, his throw does not make sense, as simply stepping on first would end the inning, but confusion can overwhelm the logic of the moment).    So should the batter be awarded 1st base?  Should he be out while the 2 baserunners are allowed to advance to 2nd and 3rd (the likliest outcome of the actual play)?

It is this dilemma that prevents baseball from adopting replay for all such situations.

That said, on dead ball, action-ending plays, replay could always be used.  Thus on fair or foul calls that would result in ground-rule doubles or questionable catches in foul territory with no runners (or 2 outs), replay could, and perhaps should, be used.  The double play call in the 8th inning, for example, would be a prime candidate for replay, as the umpire’s incorrect call ended the inning.

Given the problems inherent in replay and the necessarily complex rule structure that it would create, perhaps MLB is better off without replay.

Everybody knows the “Golden rule.” For the vast majority of people, it’s probably a good rule to follow, but not for me. If I treated people the way that I wanted to be treated, it would offend most people’s sensitivities, enrage many, and alienate almost everyone. In my life, I think I’ve met two or three people who can handle that type of treatment, and maybe one other who prefers it the way that I do. Below the basic tenets of how I would like to be treated, along with the reasons most people would hate them.

1. Criticize – I want to be criticized, and you can forget the word “constructive.” All criticism is constructive, and anyone who disagrees just has a bad attitude and closed mind. If my hair is ugly, tell me. If I’m not pulling my own weight, tell me. In fact, the only thing that insults me is when I’m screwing up and I know it and no one has the decency to tell me. What if I didn’t know? Do you want me to go on being ignorant to my personal failings? My ego is not so delicate that it cannot accept my own fallibility. Then again, that’s exactly the reason that most people don’t want to be criticized. To them, fallible = weak, despite the fact that it is the fear of their own fallibility that constitutes real weakness.
2. Pursue your own self-interest openly – It is no secret that 100% of people act in their own self interests 100% of the time. There is no such thing as altruism; people label their deeds as altruism to cover up their personal motivation. If you give money to a homeless person, don’t act like it was altruistic. You’re just trying to make yourself feel better by climbing onto a moral pedestal. “Look how great I am that I can do nice things for other people just because I’m such a good person.” That self-interested thought is the motivation behind your “altruism,” so stop denying it. Screw me over because that’s what is in your own self-interest; just don’t deny the motivation afterwards. Of course, most people want to hear the silly cover-story. They want to pretend that when they win or lose, it was about them, but it wasn’t. It’s about me me me, and never you.
3. Use the F word – You can’t speak exclamation points and raising your voice is annoying unless you’re watching football or actually saying something worthwhile (this is very rare). So when you want to add emphasis to something, just say “fuck” or “fucking” or any other derivative you can think of. In writing, I can use CAPS, italics, bold, or underline, or even ALL OF THEM to add emphasis, but verbally, the easiest way is to just say “fuck.” So fucking start saying fucking “fuck” al-fucking-ready you fucking fucks. Then again, most people don’t like the fuck word because they were taught an upside-down and backwards morality that gives real moral weight to some words. The power of “fuck” comes from its simple, strong pronunciation and underlying meaning (to sexify), not from the moral sheepishness of the Judeo-Christian, authoritarian tyranny of yesteryear. It isn’t immoral to say “fuck,” but it is immoral to impose your ethical idiosyncrasies on unwilling and unaware victims.
4. Give no credit for past work – What you do today will affect tomorrow, and so it has always been, and always will be. I don’t care if you did something great 10 years ago if you suck at life now, and you shouldn’t either. This goes to the old sports-fan fallacy of deciding which team is better now by looking at how many championships they’ve won. The Redskins won some superbowls forever ago, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are a terrible organization run by a greedy asshole who mistreats their fans, continues to use their racist moniker, and claims to be from Washington despite playing their games in Landover (as in, “Hand your Land Over you Redskins! We Euro-colonists are better than ye!” Happy Genocide!). This is the same terrible derangement that causes men in their 30s to wear high school letterman jackets (your beer belly isn’t going away because you used to be mediocre at basketball you 5’8” wannabe). So instead of acting like “what have you done for me lately?” is some sort of wrongheaded judgment, expect me to go full out today, tomorrow, and every day after that, no matter how well I did 5 years ago. Just don’t hold others to that high of a standard; one success will last most people the rest of their natural lives.

And that, my dear readers, is why the Golden Rule does not apply to me.

Now, I don’t support welfare as it exists anywhere in the United States or Europe, but I do support a social safety net.  Let’s say you go to a good school, do well, get a great job for a top rate company, spend 20 years working there and climbing the corporate ladder, and then the CEO commits fraud (like say… you worked for Enron).  So you’re out of a job, your salary demands are pretty high to cover mortgages and kids in college, and no other company is going to pay you that much because you don’t know their corporate culture.  What do you do?

You go on welfare.  You get checks from the government that keep you afloat while you find a new job or find a way to cut costs (sell your house, shaft your kids with loans, make a documentary about a made up issue and win the nobel prize, etc.).  Fine.  If you’re off in a few months, it’s hard to argue that there was anything wrong with the welfare system.

Now, let’s say that you love crack and macing children. Let’s say that you like drugs better than school and drop out.  Let’s say that you got fired from every job you ever had because you pissed in the fryalator at McDonald’s and stole bras from Forever 21.  Let’s say that the most money you ever made came from prostituting yourself in prison after you robbed a Chuck-e-Cheese.  In that case, you deserve nothing, and you only deserve that much because there’s nothing to take away from you (unless you have children, then the government should take them away).   But is that how things are?  No.  We’ll pay you so well that you’d have to take a pay cut to get a real job.  And worst of all… we’ll give you  a free cell phone, presumably so you can call your crack dealer on his go phone.

Welcome to the new millennium.  Free cell phones for homeless people.  While we’re at it, why don’t we just let the IRS line up every working American and kick them squarely in the balls with a steel-toed boot while Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, and Manuel Zelaya (but not Kim Jong Il, fuck that guy) watch and laugh and fornicate with each other?   It would save us some of the embarrassment.

Actually, maybe I should strike that idea, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emmanuel might take me up on it, if they ever finish robbing me to pay for artificial lungs for smokers, insulin for type-2 diabetics, and every other treatment they can think of for people who are sick because it’s their own damn fault.

The point is this.  Every time a homeless person uses a cell phone, a bird shits on God’s new blazer that he just got from the tailor and was planning to wear a few times before he had to dry clean it, but now he can’t, so in his rage creates another talentless boy band.

(Side note: I just discovered that if you google “The Jonas Brothers” the most common search is “The Jonas Brothers’ phone number.”  I cannot decide whether to be amused or depressed by this).

In 2007, the award went to Al Gore for… making a movie in which he makes a speech about an unproven scientific theory and using footage from a Hollywood film that was created on a computer to “prove” his point.

In 2009, Barack Obama won for… making a speech in Cairo about how he wants to make friends with the Muslim world, making a speech about nuclear disarmament while allowing the worlds two most dangerous dictators to develop nuclear capabilities, and making a speech about cutting greenhouse emissions without proposing specific policy measures or committing to any action whatsoever.

So let’s see who the candidates for the next awards might be.

Clearly the Nobel prize committee likes speeches, and based on the Gore/Obama prototype, we’re looking for people with cultlike followings.

Hmm… prime candidate #1: Lyndon LaRouche, America’s #1 cult leader.  He stands for Anti-Semitism and extreme socialism, and given Obama’s love of screwing over Israel and, well… socialism, I’d have to say he’s a perfect fit.  He doesn’t like the global warming theory, so that’s a strike against him, but a pretty strong candidate nonetheless.

Next up we have Charlie Rangel, the head of the House Ways and Means committe and a known tax fraud.  His hobbies include using multiple rent-controlled apartments as offices, failing to disclose $500,000 in assets to the IRS, and lying on his tax returns.   Has he ever killed a puppy?  Probably.  Nomination granted.

Next up, we have Sarah Palin, the dumbest person to ever run for a national office in the United States (barely edging out Nancy Pelosi, who actually won).  Her hobbies include lying about the circumstances of her pregnancy, condoning redneck love-making in the Alaskan governor’s mansion, and spying on Vladimir Putin with the world’s strongest set of binoculars.  She still needs to do something special to win the award though, I think winning the Miss Teen South Carolina pageant should do it.

And rounding out the top 4 we have the hybrid monster comprised on Mark Sanford, Rod Blagojevich, and Elliot Spitzer, with just a hint of Larry Craig.  His name is Elliart Sangocrespitz, and his favorite pasttimes are rejecting stimulus money while working hard to improve US/Argentina relations with frequent retreats on the Appalachian trail, selling political favors on craigslist, and patronizing high-end hookers in airport bathrooms.  You know what, there’s no way this guy can lose.

Welcome to Norway, where the prize named after a dynamite-inventing arms merchant isn’t even worth as much as a gold star in a special ed kindergarten classroom (except for the million dollar prize that goes with it, that’s worth… well, not as much as it used to be).

The fallout from this Sunday’s game focuses on two things: the light roughing the passer calls that were technically correct, despite problems with the rule; and the bad spotting of the football.

In his weekly ESPN page2 column, Greg Easterbrook points out that the Ravens received a friendly call on a screen pass where they had an ineligible receiver downfield; however, the rule is somewhat ambiguous, as Easterbrook points out, and missing the call could very easily be attributed to human error.

Less attributable to human error is the obvious mistakes on multiple pass interference calls.  First, offensive pass interference was called on Dereck Mason for incidental contact before the pass was thrown on the play that should have given the Ravens the lead.  Second, on third down, as the Ravens threatened to score, the obvious pass interference by the Patriots was overlooked, as the corner hit Mason so early that he almost had time to recover before the pass got to him.  A dropped pass on 4th down overshadowed that missed call, but its impact is undeniable.

Why are the officials not being held accountable for these obvious mistakes?

In round one, four cities were considered (Tokyo, Madrid, Rio de Janiero, and Chicago).  Then one city is dropped and there is another round of voting, and so on until the winner is declared.

But Chicago was dropped first!  Look, IOC.  The leader of the free world flew all the way to Copenhagen, drawing WAY more publicity to the selection meeting than it would have gotten otherwise, and not just from America.  Even if Rio was going to win (which, let’s face it, would be the right choice), it should have come down to Chicago and Rio in the finals.  Who cares about Madrid?  *Yawn* If Chicago wasn’t a finalist, the selection would be a below-the-fold story, IF it even made the front page.  Chicago makes it a big story, and you blew the suspense!

So now let’s think of why Rio would beat out Chicago.  Hmm…

1. The biggest Chicago landmark was bought and had its name changed.  No international tourist wants to visit the Willis Tower.

2. Chicago has a history of corrupt politians and organized crime, and the Chinese would throw tantrums if we out-corrupted them just 8 years later.

3. Three words: Brutal. Gang. Violence. and three more: Caught. On. Tape. and two more: Last. Week.

4. Oprah

5. There have never been Olympics in South America.  Rio is clearly the only conscionable choice, unless we want to just ignore a major continent.  Even Australia has hosted the games.  Someone in South America needs to.  And we should be happy it’s Brazil.  It could have been Venezuela!

Look, I want to go to the next American-hosted Olympics, and Chicago would have been great.  But it was not the right time.

The decision hasn’t even been made yet, but it has to be Rio.  There really is no other choice.

The second rule that the NFL must change is pass interference.  In week 3 of the NFL season there were three significant pass interference calls that dramatically affected games.  The first was called on Calvin Johnson on a 60+ yard reception at the Redskins 4 yard line.  A Detroit score there would have iced the game.  Instead, pass interference was called and the game came down to the end.  The most damaging, however, was called against the Carolina Panthers.  Trailing 10-7 in the third quarter, the Panthers scored a long TD to take the lead.  But the yellow hanky flew and the score was taken off the board.  The Panthers never even smelled the endzone again.  In both of these situations, the call wasn’t even close.  The offensive players gained no advantage from their respective actions.

But it isn’t just offensive pass interference that has problems.  The penalty for defensive pass interference, particularly on downfield passes, is too strict.  Teams regularly consider “throw deep and hope for interference” a legitimate strategy.  “Fall down and hope for holding” is not a legitimate defensive strategy, pass intereference shouldn’t be either.  However, changing pass interference to the college rule (15 yards from the old line of scrimmage) would not be perfect either.

I actually like having a 2-tiered interference call.  If the defender interfere’s with the reciever, go with the college rule.  On an intentional takedown (to save a TD after getting burned) go with the NFL rule.  That is, do with PI what we used to have for facemasking.  Incidental PI = 15 yards from the old line of scrimmage.  Intentional PI = spot foul.

On top of that, offensive pass interference should be dropped completely.  This is football.

NFL rules committee, think about it.

I think I got 10 mosquito bites today.  Those little fuckers are smart.  They wait until there’s 200 lbs. of barbell on my back and then they attack.  The only thing I hate more than mosquitos is bad drivers.  I almost got hit by one of those today.  The USDA has an employee shuttle and the driver doesn’t care if you are in a crosswalk with the walk sign lit and he has a red light and an explicit “NO TURN ON RED” sign in front of him.  Brakes are for losers.

So why, rational minds may ask, do I go to a gym full of dead rats and mosquitos?  Frankly, because I go to the gym for a very specific reason:

I want to be better than you.

Your gym is full of expensive machines that aren’t worth their weight in high-fructose corn syrup. Your gym is full of the sound of fat women’s thighs slapping together as they jog (lightly) on the treadmill to make up for the triple thick frappalatte they had everyday since it was invented.  Your gym is full of guys who read muscle and fitness magazine and do bicep curls so their veins will pop out, forgetting that body-building is to fitness what masturbation is to sex.  Your gym is full of people doing crunches.  There’s only one type of person who needs to do crunches: someone who is going to prison, where crunch-ability plays a vital role.  Not only can you tuck into the fetal position faster after all those crunches, you can also move your upper body up and down in a 10 inch arc for a really long time (if you catch my drift).

My gym is full of sweat and blood.  A lot of that blood is my blood.

At your gym, if someone’s hand rips open and starts gushing on the equipment, some overweight and underfit trainer will probably ask them to leave.  At my gym, we’ll wrap your hand in tape and tell you to keep going.

Some people go through the motions.  They invest in bonds in their twenties, eat whole grains, and jog.  I crank up the risk, eat fat (and lots of it), and rip both my wrists open doing 30 muscle-ups for time because only one of my shoulders is hurting that day.