Monday, December 08, 2003

Quick List: Doritos Flavors From the Past It's a new feature on the Pipeline, called the Quick List.  Minimal explanation, minimal justification.  Just the list.  Today, Doritos Flavors From the Past. Pizza Hut-Honest.  Never had 'em.  Couldn't make myself do it. Taco-You know, the real Taco flavor, from back in the day.  Not this Taco Bell stuff. Monterrey Jack-Came in a black bag.  Not bad.  But not good, either. Salsa Verde-These were great.  Perhaps they still exist somewhere? Flamin' Hot-These also still exist, but should not.  These should be the Doritos for people who are sent to Hell 4:08:07 PM    Say what?[]

Al Sharpton I like Al Sharpton.  I will fully admit to knowing Sharpton only as a characiture prior to the last few months, and even then the characiture was incomplete, something along the lines of "He's a Jesse Jackson-type rights crusader from New York who's also been involved in some goofy business that I can't really specify, and who seems to be a punchline on a lot of late night shows." And I certainly can't say I know a hell of a lot more about Sharpton now, now that I think about it.  I don't know what the hell the Tawana Brawley deal was about, in terms of whether Sharpton's support for her was genuine, nor do I know much else about his past. I just like the guy. I like him because of the way he has carried himself in the debates.  His answers have been cogent and weighty and funny.  Naturally, he can afford to be those things because he is not really in contention, but the point is that he hasn't been anywhere near the clown I had been led to believe he would be.  He has been respectful of the process, and frankly, he has given the debates some much-needed life.  This is frustrating to me, because I know that we need to cut the wheat from the chaff soon enough to get down to brass tax in these debates, so I can use more cliches to describe them.  But at the same time, that's a sobering realization: That Al Sharpton has more screen presence than all the other serious Dem candidates combined! And damn if I don't like Sharpton because of another great politico turn on Saturday Night Live this weekend.  Sharpton was James Brown's road manager at one point (something I didn't know), and he busted out with a respectable version of the Godfather's "I Feel Good", complete with fancy footwork and a younger, jumpsuit-wearing version of him played by Tracy Murray.  It's always a strange thing to see SNL change gears when people like Al Gore or McCain or Sharpton come on, but they end up (usually) being their best shows.  The skit where the three wise men get stopped because they are black was pretty amazing, really.  It's satire, but the progression from the cop's initial "Evening, gentlemen.  Where are you going?", to "Get off the camels, now!" was so typical, you get the feeling maybe it's not quite so satirical anymore.  It's odd, liking people.  You like people for reasons that are hard to grasp or explain.  Something about the way Sharpton has carried himself in this process makes me like him more than, say, Dick Gephardt.  I don't dislike Gephardt, not at all.  But if I was at a party, and those two guys were standing alone by the food tray, I'm going to Sharpton first. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to be voting for him, either. You know who else I like? Paris Hilton, who was also very good in her brief SNL appearance this weekend.  I know that's wrong on a lot of levels.  I know she's a vapid, vain publicity-hound who looks like she skipped her last 200 meals to snort coke and make porn movies.  I know that.  And yet, I like her. There it is.  I like Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton.  And Linus likes Toby Keith's Ford commercials.  I think Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton and Toby Keith should all be in a movie together, or at least a modern-day remake of The A Team.  I would watch that. 2:46:47 PM    Say what?[]

Pipeline Mailbag: The BCS Pipeline received the following message from Loyal Pipeline Reader Clint E., regarding the BCS: Pipeline: I want you to turn your God-Like knowledge of all things that are sports toward the BCS and the manner in which college bowl games are determined.  I want a scathing critique of how college football needs to go to a playoff system.  Devote as much time and effort to this undertaking as possible.  The focal point of this piece should be how the No. 6 ranked Longhorns failed, for the second year in a row, to get a BCS bowl despite the fact that they are one of the top-ranked teams in the country.  More importantly, explain how a loss by the No. 1 team in the country can hurt those teams that are ranked below them? Clint, as you may have guessed, is a Texas fan.  Here is my response to him: It's all messed up, though Texas ain't the team with any complaining to do.  Being dismantled at any point of the season, in the way Texas was dismantled by OU, should automatically disqualify them from making any serious complaints about this outcome, regardless of past outcomes.  As for why OU's loss hurts Texas, I assume you know the answer to that question and are just being pissy, but the logic is simple: If the teams that Texas play all have good records, then that shows that Texas played against good teams, which helps their BCS cause.  If Texas got blown out by an OU team that went undefeated, that's one thing.  But OU's getting blown out by K-State necessarily causes a bit less sympathy for Texas on the basis of their loss to OU.  After all, K-State beat them, right?   It seems to me that SoCal has a serious grievance.  Their one loss was on the road, 34-31, to Cal early in the season.  OU's loss was a butt-thumping in what was their most critical game of the year to date, at a "neutral" field that should have played heavily to their advantage.  LSU is a very good team, and they beat a very good team in their biggest game of the year.  I have no beef with them being included in the Finals.   Overall, I don't get it, either.  A Final Four or Elite Eight would make college football so HUGE in this country, and still rake in the big bucks, the tail that usually wags the NCAA dog.  I know there are logistical complications tied to sponsorships and length of season and whatnot.  Fix them.  They did it once with the BCS, they can do it again for a Final Four.  But note, that Final Four still wouldn't include Texas this year...   Hell, make it an Elite Eight, so TCU can get their ass kicked and they can shut up already. 12:51:14 PM    Say what?[]

Step Off, Cupid! Yesterday, as Linus and Jane and I were watching the Wolves game, a Subway commercial came on which featured Cupid firing flaming arrows at people.  Linus asked why that guy was shooting people in the chest with arrows, a totally reasonable question. Jane explained that Cupid was shooting them with make-believe arrows, and that Cupid himself was a make-believe person.  That got my attention.  It's not that I would describe Cupid in any other way than make-believe, because I wouldn't.  I suppose hearing Jane dismiss Cupid's existence so readily really made me realize what a raw deal Cupid gets. This is not an original thought on my part.  One of the very good tracks on the Andre 3000 half of the new Outkast album is told from Cupid's point of view, how nobody believes in him, despite the fact that people actively perpetuate things like the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Jane's statment was the exact embodiment of the kind of Myth Discrimination that Cupid must face every day.  When pressed on this matter, Jane grew indignant.  "Whatever.  It's not like Cupid is some big childhood fantasy that kids have something invested in, like SC or the EB or the TF."  Good gravy!  She even named the very same names that Andre 3000 named!  Mind you, again, that I am guilty of this same bias, though at least for me it is a latent, stay-nice-on-the-surface kind of bias that plays so well in Minnesota.  But not Jane.  She didn't even give a second's thought to making Cupid real for Linus.  Cupid was automatically persona non grata in our household. Of course, it is important to note that the representation of Cupid that Linus saw showed him literally shooting people in the chest with very real, very flaming arrows, and that might not be the most positive representation of Cupid that I could come up with. But as I thought about what seperated Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy from Cupid, I wasn't able to come up with a satisfying answer for Cupid's fate relative to the others.  Is it because Cupid can't give kids anything?  Kids all "get something" from those other characters, be it gifts or candy or whatnot.  But kids don't get jack shit from Cupid.  Why do we have to have myths in place to disguise giving our kids a little something extra?  Why do we talk so little about the mystery of love with kids?  I'm not saying that Cupid de-mystifies it, because of course he mythologizes it.  But at least we would talk a bit about love.  You know, how parents met, why they got together, that sort of thing.  Think of the great cover Cupid could provide parents when their kids start to ask those questions.  Instead of this conversation: Kid: "What was your first date like?" Mother: "Well, your dad got me loaded up with Tequila, and the party was getting late, you know?" Father: "And I was so drunk I thought your mom was someone else at the time.  You know, in those days they only had the morning after pill in France."  Both parents sigh... Parents could instead just blame it all on Cupid's Arrow, and leave out the gory details.  But no kid in their right mind is going to believe in Cupid when the need arises, because we parents are giving Cupid the shaft!  We'll let Santa down our chimneys, the Tooth Fairy into our children's bedrooms, and the Easter Bunny into our hearts, but Cupid can't even knock on the front door. I ask you: Would the world be such a bad place if kids believed in Cupid? 12:19:02 PM    Say what?[]

Pipeline on the NBA: My Five I have slowly been getting up to speed on my NBA viewing, catching parts of up to five or six games a week, and reading whatever I can during the day.  In the course of the past week, I noticed myself talking about a small number of players in reverential tones.  Not so much about their greatness, their stats, their reputations; I simply noticed there were a few players where I just watched them play and shook my head and thought, "Damn.  I wish that guy played for my team." Here's my five.  They aren't necessarily the best.  These are just guys that have unique games, my "Damn, I wish he played for my team" Team. PG-Bobby Jackson SG-Allen Iverson SF-Andrei Kirilenko PF-Kevin Garnett C-Yao Ming Of course, KG already plays for my team, and I'm thankful for it every damn day.  Anybody who thinks this is a homer vote didn't see KG dismantle the Kings and Clippers on the road this weekend.  The other guys?  Bobby Jackson is what you get if Michael Jordan was 6'1", instead of 6'6".  He's that dynamic, now that he can shoot.  Letting him go to keep Will Avery instead, when they could have signed Jackson for a song, is perhaps the biggest blunder in Wolves history.  When you have the Joe Smith fiasco on your record, that's saying something.  Seeing Jackson's burning desire and effort against the Wolves, motivated by payback and revenge, is all the proof you'll ever need (and I need none) that these games are about so much more than the money.  Or rather, that maybe they are about the money, and if you don't give it to the player when they think they deserve it, they will have a personal vendetta against you forever.  Bobby Jackson makes it all happen when he's on the court.  Will Avery?  I couldn't even tell you where he is today.  And no, I'm not doing a Google search for that. Iverson?  Iverson's a complex dude, no doubt about it.  Yeah, he's got the chip on his shoulder, and anybody who watched his SportsCentury episode knows he's got one for a damn good reason.  Does AI create problems for himself?  Of course he does.  Does he take too many shots, sometimes bad shots?  You bet.  But I defy anyone to watch Allen Iverson's effort during a game and question his desire to win or his dynamic abilities.  Loose ball?  That's Iverson's ball?  You need somebody to get a big bucket?  Iverson has no fear.  He has no fear!  He'll try anything, and he'll make it work more often than any six-footer has a right to expect in the NBA.  He is unique, and though I don't think his career will end in a feel-good kind of way, I can understand why Philly fans feel as passionately about him as Wolves fans feel about KG. Kirilenko is just a bizarre Russian collection of elbows and knees and energy, wrapped up in some kind of funky Sigue Sigue Sputnik hairdo.  He's murder on the break, and you don't want to see him guarding you in any situation. Garnett?  No other player I'd rather watch in any sport, period.  He hasn't won anything at all in the postseason yet, but of course the guy's only 27 and has been on teams that didn't have a whole lot of talent besides KG.  Game-to-game, nobody does more to help his team win.  Period.  And he's playing the best ball of his life so far this year.  When Garnett, Cassell and Sprewell get used to playing together, watch out. Yao Ming is just a baby, really.  He's still learning, still adapting to this league and his teammates.  But his size, his mental approach, and his skills are just amazing.  More than that, the man has charisma.  I want him to do well.  That counts for a whole lot. So, those are My Five.  I'd take those five against just about anybody.   11:52:11 AM    Say what?[]

The Seer Says: Commence With The Orgy Of Agony Well, it figures.  I decide to write 1000 words about how the Seahawks are most likely going to destroy the Vikings, and naturally the Vikings eke out a 34-7 one-sided victory in which the Seahawks looked absolutely shellshocked.  Of course, among those 1000 words were these: The thing is, it would be so like this Vikings team to explode with a couple long passes to Moss and a big Bennett run.  They are explosive, in theory.  The Vikings always seem to be just good enough to string their pathetic fans along for the maximum amount of pain, and a win in this game really puts them in good shape for the playoffs, not that any playoff game won't be a giant orgy of agony for Vikings faithful in the form of some 38-17 drubbing. Make no mistake, I'm an idiot for not seeing this coming, but anybody who pretends to know this Vikings team is a soothesayer of the highest regard.  None of this changes the fact that the Vikings are still an implosion in progress.  The Rams game wasn't a mirage, nor were the Raiders and Chargers games.  This is a team that is dangerous is they decide to throw the deep ball, and they hit a couple.  If they can get a lead on a team, watch out.  But you play them tough, toe-to-toe, and they are so very beatable. 11:25:33 AM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2004 DH. Last update: 1/2/2004; 9:25:07 AM.