All dogs go to Heaven. Except some... Some are cunts and burn in Hell.

My neighbor had a dog pass away a while back, it was a Boxer.  She had the dog when she moved into the complex.  She took it in after her niece was unable to maintain the responsibility of having a dog.  When the Boxer died, I displayed sincerity to her face and told her how sorry I was for her loss...  However, when I got into my apartment, I couldn't have been more happier.

Why?

Because fuck that dog, that's why!

Every time I left my apartment, and she was out walking the dog, that fucking thing would lunge at me, snapping it's chomps.  I couldn't leave my house whenever the dog was out enjoying a sunny day, out of fear that my little neighbor wouldn't be able to control Lady (that was the dogs name).  Which happened more often than not because my neighbor was retired, so she just hung out with her dog on her porch when it was nice out.

If she was walking the dog so it could do it's business, she would tighten her grip on the leash as people approached and passed by.  From what I understand, this is a big NO-NO because apparently dogs can sense this, and will react to protect their owner (I guess).

To those that know me, I have an intimidating stature.  I'm tall and have weight on me, so I guess I look like a bad guy to a dog, at least, to Lady...  I reality, I'm anything but that.  If anything, I'm a big wuss and softy.

But I'm not the only one that Lady would try and quench her bloodlust on, oh no.  She's attempted to assassinate my other neighbor, the old school Italian guy too.  He isn't so understanding as I am either.  I passive-aggressive talk about it.  He told the woman, in his best Joe Pesci voice, while chomping on a cigar:

"If dat fooking dog does dat shit again, it's fooking gone. Yoo hear me?!?"

Of course the dog did it again, and nothing became of it, and Lady eventually succumbed to cancer.



I bring this up now because recently, some asshole felt the need to abandon a dog in my complex.  They drove up to one of the entrance stairs, got out of the car, tied the leash to the railing, and drove off.

It's a Chihuahua, translated from Spanish meaning, "little shit."

My neighbor, being lonely from not having a dog and only three fucking cats to comfort her, adopted the little shit.  Why do I know it's a little shit?  BECAUSE THE FUCKING THING LUNGES AT ME WHENEVER SHE'S WALKING IT!!!

So now I'm starting to think that it's not necessarily the Boxer that was an asshole, but my neighbor instead...

Social Media 101: Hall and Shannon

Recently I came across an image in my social network that sparked my attention. I'll attach the image below, but first I'm going to describe it. The image contains three men, cropped, in their own individual panel. The first panel is a man of Middle Eastern descent, with some scruff on his face. He's holding what looks like an AK47 and dressed in what I assume is the cultural wardrobe in his native land. Behind him is a flag on a flagpole that's green and has some sort of Arabic writing on it. In the lower third portion, there is a word blazed across this man: "TERRORIST"

The second man, in the middle, is a man of African American descent, also with some scruff on his face. He's holding what looks like a semi-automatic, 9mm pistol, and dressed in a "wife-beater" shirt, a backwards cap of sorts, and has an earring(s). It's hard to tell what is in the background since the image is cropped, but it looks like a blacklight is above him and he's in a common bedroom. In the lower third portion on this panel, it says, "THUG".

The last man, in the last panel, is a Caucasian man, with a trimmed goatee and a cigar in his mouth. He's holding what looks like an AR15, with a scope. He too is wearing a "wife-beater" shirt and has a military styled hat. I think he might have a tattoo on his collar-bone, but I can't really tell. The background of the image looks like he's standing in the woods. The lower third this time says, "2ND AMENDMENT".

Here is the image...

Now, what do you take from this? Seriously think about it and hold onto that thought.

I mentioned that I saw this image in the timeline of my social network. The person that shared this is a friend (who is African American) I was in the military with. One day we went out to lunch, and I'll never forget that day because he taught me more about the social construct of race then I've ever learned up to that point. Where I'm from in the world, majority of African Americans speak in a very urbanized manner. The media I've consumed, represents African Americans in an urban manner (one of the first albums I bought was Snoop Dogg, "Doggiestyle"). It never dawned on me that black people could speak like those white people from the suburbs. I watched The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air growing up, and I remember Will constantly criticizing Carlton for the way he spoke, it was a running joke that viewers waited for. It was a thought process that pop culture and contemporary media reinforced, this is how you're suppose to talk. My friend taught me that NOT every black person speaks the way the media had influenced me for so many years, and it's actually kind of offensive the think that. It changed my life forever.

Anyway, back to the image. This is a powerful image, because it's things like this that are supposed to be thought provoking. This is a current trend in our news media. Armed arabs are terrorists. Armed blacks are thugs. Armed white men are exercising their rights.

My friend included the comment, "If you have to un-follow me I understand..."

Considering that I've been studying communication, media, and the effects it has on people, I commented back saying, "Of course things look like that when you take them out of context."

Naturally, someone replied with something along the lines of "Enlighten us". Not wanting to get into an argument I said, "I don't disagree with him" and backed off. You know how these things go. Something said gets taken the wrong way, there's back peddling, massive trolling, etc. Social media becomes tiresome. I swear, I should just have my girlfriend manage my social accounts. She often acts as a mediator for things like this saying, "Why bother?"

But the comment stuck with me. The image stuck with me. The fact it came from an influential friend, stuck with me. So if you're willing to learn a little bit, I'll enlighten you to why it's important to not take media shared out of context. But first, some fundamentals.

As you can tell from the diagram, the is The Mathematical Theory of Communication (The Sender/Receiver Model). It was created by Dr. Claude E. Shannon in 1948. The path is as follows:

The information source produces a message -> A transmitter operates on the message to create a signal, which is then sent through a channel -> A channel, which is the medium or method over which the signal, carrying the information that composes the message, is sent -> Noise in introduced, whether wanted or unwanted, this cannot be avoided -> A receiver, which transform the signal back into the message intended for delivery -> A destination, which can be a person or a machine, for whom the message is intended

So what does this mean? This explains how the symbols of communication are transmitted, how the transmitted symbols convey meaning, and the effect of the received meaning.

This is the Encoding/Decoding Model created by Stuart Hall in 1973.  This model explains how media messages are produced, disseminated, and interpreted.  In contrast to the traditional linear approach of the sender and receiver, Hall perceives each of these steps as both autonomous and interdependent.  "Each stage will affect the message (or ”product”) being conveyed as a result of its ’discursive form’ (e.g. practices, instruments, relations).  This implies that, for example, the sender of information can never be sure that it will be perceived by the target audience in the way that was intended, because of this chain of discourse." 

Broken down, this is the path:

On the left you have Production – This is where the encoding of a message takes place. By drawing upon society's dominant ideologies, the creator of the message is feeding off of society's beliefs, and values. 

In the middle you have Circulation – How individuals perceive things: visual vs. written. How things are circulated influences how audience members will receive the message and put it to use.

On the right you have Use (distribution or consumption) – This is the decoding/interpreting of a message which requires active recipients. This is a complex process of understanding for the audience.

Not necessarily picture, lastly you have Reproduction – This is the stage after audience members have interpreted the message in their own way based on their experiences and beliefs. What is done with the message after it has been interpreted is where this stage comes in. At this point, you will see whether individuals take action after they have been exposed to a specific message. (Ex. Sharing an image you like on social media) 

In simpler terms, Encoding/decoding is the translation of a message that is easily understood.  When you decode a message, you are extracting the meaning of that message into terms that you are able to easily understand.  Decoding has both verbal and non-verbal forms through communication.  Decoding behavior without using words would be observing body language.  People are able to decode body language based on their emotions.  For example, some body language signs for when someone is upset, anger, or stressed would be a use of excessive hand/arm movements, red in the face, crying, and even sometimes silence.  Sometimes when someone is trying to get a message across to someone, the message can be interpreted differently from person to person.  Decoding is all about the understanding of what someone already knows, based on the information given throughout the message being received.  Whether there is a large audience or exchanging a message to one person, decoding is the process of obtaining, absorbing, understanding, and sometimes using the information that was given throughout a verbal or non-verbal message.

For example, since advertisements can have multiple layers of meaning, they can be decoded in various ways and can mean something different to different people.  Hall claims that the decoding subject can assume three different positions: Dominant/hegemonic position, negotiated position, and oppositional position. 

Additionally, we have three media effects models that were popular from the 1920's-1960's and still speak volumes today.

The first is known as the Hypodermic Needle Model (or Magic Bullet theory, or Direct Effects Model) This model assumed that audiences passively accepted media messages and would exhibit predictable reactions in response to those messages.  You don't question what is being sent, you just believe what you're told.  

Ex. You see a commercial that says "Join the Army, you're life will be better" and you run out and join the Army. (You see this a lot in social media. People will share images or articles without questioning authenticity.)

Second is the Minimal Effects Model (selective exposure/retention - individual based) 

Searching for media that reinforces personal values.

Ex. You have a liberal perspective, so you watch liberal news stations.

Third is the Uses and Gratifications Model (instead of asking "what", this model asks "why")

Using certain media to fulfill certain uses/needs.
Ex. Watching Fox News to argue with their points because you don't agree with them.

Watching a specific TV show, so you can tweet about it with other people who are watching it.

Finally, we have this:

This is a popular picture of Richard Sherman.  In 2014, at the end of the NFC Championship game, he went off in a rant and was quoted as saying, "I'm the best corner in the game. When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that's the result you're gonna get! Don't you ever talk about me!"

Social, sports, and news media exploded calling this dude a thug.  But let me ask you a question, who is pictured?  

Simply put, that picture is NOT Richard Sherman, it's the media representation of Richard Sherman.

Again, that picture is the media representation of Richard Sherman, not Richard Sherman.

Given the nature of how messages work, the intentions of the sender might not be the same as those receiving the message.  It's a new world out there.  We're all content creators and producers of media.  The second you come across an image or an article and you share it, you're feeding the fire.  It's a matter of whether or not that fire is going to be used for warmth or destruction.

So when I say, "Of course things look like that when you take them out of context," I mean exactly that.  The original image shared serves no purpose, because I don't know the context of those images. Is that guy labeled a "TERRORIST" an actual terrorist?  Is that black guy a "THUG"?  What about that white dude, is he just exercising his "2ND AMENDMENT" rights?  

I don't know... and neither do you.

Nightcrawler, or Who is to blame here?

After viewing the film “Nightcrawler”, I can point out several instances where media ethics are compromised in favor of “if it bleeds, it leads”.  In the beginning of the film, we’re introduced to the main protagonist, Lou Bloom, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, a character detached from social norms and unemployed petty thief.  What’s so intriguing about this character is his vernacular; how he speaks to people and body language throughout the film is an eerily reminder of Gyllenhaal’s earlier work in “Donnie Darko”.  Lou stops at an accident on the highway and witnesses the CHP save a woman’s life, but that’s not what excites him, it’s the independent news media videotaping the entire scene that awakens a fire inside.  Lou doesn’t like people, and he eventually admits this later in the film, and since he doesn’t like people, filming the aftermath of gruesome crimes or accidents just might be the career he so desperately needs.  Since he is able to detach himself, he can get those intimate shots.

After making a quick few hundred dollars, and a few instances of failed crimes scenes, Lou finds something news worthy to film, a shooting.  Coming a little too close for the likes of the rescue crew, the police shut down the scene.  There’s problem number one, Lou’s complete disregard for the haste and space the rescue crew needs puts the patients life in jeopardy.  There was another cameraman filming the same scene, but a little further back.  This cameraman probably knew through experience that if he went any closer, the police would shut the location down and he would lose his chance to get more footage.  But Lou, unaware of the norms, literally shoves the camera right in between the rescue workers, roughly two to three feet away from the patient.  It’s a little tasteless and a reminder that people like this exist out there.  The other cameraman criticizes Lou for going in close and causing the police to shut down the scene. 

Now that Lou finally has something worth selling and overhears a quick negotiation from the other cameraman, he heads to a low rated local news station to sell his work.  Considering Lou got so close to the scene, the news director Nina, played by Rene Russo, immediately wants to buy the footage, but is met with some restraint from a coworker who proclaims, “Do people want to see this during breakfast?”, which is a reference to the Breakfast Test we’ve discussed at one point in our lectures.   They eventually buy the footage from Lou and now he’s hooked.  He is detached from society and found a chance to have a career that accepts him for who he his, while being his own boss.

The next instance of compromise is when Lou enters a home that’s been taped off by police.  Knowing the he wasn’t going to get any good footage from behind the tape, and watching another camera-crew pack up, Lou goes under the tape (strike one), enters the home (strike two), modifies picture placement on a refrigerator (strike three), films some junk mail for a name (strike four), and films the homeowner being questioned by police from inside the home, through the bullet ridden kitchen window (strike five).  While he managed to get some great footage that no other camera-crew was able to get,  this example of Lou’s complete disregard for the law and social constructs are just a tip of the iceberg of what he’ll do to get the shot.  At one point during this scene, he questions a neighbor about what happened, she supplies him with a curse laden response, and he asks her to respond again, only this time please don’t use foul language.  While the interaction is hilarious, it’s the perfect representation of how local communities feel in times of sorrow.  A neighbor was possibly shot, the last they care about is talking to the media.  Think about the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, an entire community under the spotlight of the media, but only a handful of interviews.  People thrive off terror and fear, but not when it’s in their backyard.  When it hits close to home, people want their space and privacy.  Is the news media to blame for this, or is it our violent nature that fuels the news feed?  I don’t know.  Anyone can go onto the internet and view the most violent deaths one could possibly imagine, but the internet is an uncensored playground, what about television?  The Budd Dwyer suicide has been rebroadcast numerous times and is often used in documentaries, uncensored.  But the suicide of journalist Christine Chubbuck has only been viewed once, when it occurred on live broadcast, which was quickly cut away and the family later brought an injunction against the station so the footage could never air again.  

To question who is responsibly in the film is difficult.  The character Lou invades privacy, modifies crime scenes, withholds evidence from law enforcement, gets his partner and competitors killed or injured, and manipulates people throughout the film to get what he wants.  Overall his character is unlikable in the sense of, “I’m just doing my job”.  But his character points out an interesting topic to be made.  Rene Russo’s character Nina works for the low rated news station that repeatedly buys Lou’s footage.  He knows they’re failing and her job is in jeopardy, and he uses this to his advantage.  The “Quid Pro Quo” deal he makes with Nina is sleazy and even though she has her grievances about it, she accepts because he’s right.  If her media outlet doesn’t buy his footage, someone else will.  See, it’s not just Lou who is the issue here, it’s also the outlets and the public.  This particular local news station has to compete with various other stations for stories and footage.  Since Lou is willing to break boundaries (and laws) to get footage, Nina is willing to compensate him accordingly, thus in turn boosting the ratings of the station and securing her career.  

Do I personally think that situations like these actually happen?  Yes and No.  There was an older film that touched a similar storyline about ten years ago, called “Paparazzi”.  

This fictional work focused more on the privacy of celebrities and what a man will do to protect his family.  But there is one scene in the film that goes along with the narrative of Nightcrawler, the paparazzi cause a horrible car accident and even though one of the members of the group notify the authorities, they’re still firing off their cameras to get the exclusive.  Tom Sizemore is seen defending his career as a “photojournalist” after a woman criticizes him that his “pictures hurt people”, stating, “My job is to provide a window of reality for society, it’s up to them whether they want to look through it or not... I mean, everyone wants to have a little peek... It’s human nature.” He’s one hundred percent correct., people are generally curious creatures.  The scrutiny that the media faces whenever they broadcast something tasteless is an endless discussion of “Who is to blame here, the media (who are just doing their jobs) or the people” that’ll never be answered until society can answer the question:  What do we care about more, bloodlust or happy endings? Until people can change their views on what’s important to them, the media will never change.  It’ll be the same story every night, violence and fear.  So yes, I do think the film Nightcrawler is an accurate reflection of the news media, but I also think it uses artistic license, because I’ve never heard a story about a journalist tinkering with evidence and basically creating a crime so they can get the scene from two angles (the last instance in the film). But more-so, I think it’s an accurate reflection of societies desire to see stories that are raw and real.

"Homicide: Life on the Street" An Essay

Episode: "The Subway"

The subway.  Mass transit.  Millions of people use this mode of transportation each day.  It’s quite simple really.  You pay your fare, maneuver yourself through a maze of tunnels, people, and panhandlers, wait for your train, and let someone else do the driving for you.  It’s a simple mindless act, for a simple, mindless morning commute.  I used to work in NYC, and let me tell you, mass transit is the way to go.  It’s cheaper and less stressful, plus it affords you the opportunity of my favorite pastime: people watching.  You’ll see all sorts of characters on the subway.  Sometimes, you’ll see incredibly heinous acts...

When this episode of “Homicide: LOTS” opens up, it seems like a traditional story.  We see the average Baltimore morning, attention focused on the Inner Harbor and a couple saying goodbye for the day.  John Lange is a guy that we all know.  He’s brash and important, at least, he likes to think he is, his peers probably think he’s an asshole.  When you take the subway, you become accustom to the routine of waiting your turn, it’s an unspoken social rule.  Unless your John Lange.  You push your way through people and don’t look back.  After all, you don’t normally take mass transit, you drive, except on Friday’s, on Friday’s, you take mass transit because you “work the phones, talking wholesalers”.  Pretty average Friday, except for that time someone pushed you into an oncoming train, remember that?  Of course you do, because you’re still alive, for the next forty-five minutes or so.

Since I’ve never seen an episode of “Homicide: LOTS” prior to “The Subway”, I’m going to
assume that they follow the same formula that most prime-time dramas follow (and sitcoms for that matter): It’s a police drama and the title is “Homicide”, it’s a pretty safe bet that someone is going to die within the first five minutes (that is, if they aren’t already dead, also, this probably doesn’t happen in sitcoms, although, if it did, I’d certainly watch them).  The rest of the episode will then focus on detectives interviewing potential suspects, motives, conflict, and finally, resolution.  Unless it’s a multiple episode story arch, then add some more intense drama and call it a day.  

So generally speaking, if there’s a victim that requires a homicide detective, chances are, that one hundred percent of the time, that victim is dead.  John Lange didn’t die, so why call homicide?  This is what makes this story arch so incredible.  What if the deceased victim of a crime you’re investigating had a voice?  Would they be mad?  Sad?  Apologetic?  Remorseful?  Put yourself in the shoes of these officers.  Yes, they’re trained to deal with intense, deadly situations, but they’ve probably gotten used to the redundancies of police work.  This is obvious in the banter between the two other detectives searching for Sarah, Johns girlfriend, so the couple can have that one last goodbye.  Detective Pembleton and his partner, Detective Bayliss, are left to interview the victim and the suspect, with Pembleton going to the former.  He’s essentially speaking to a dead man.  How do you break the news to someone that they’re going to die?  Considering this is Baltimore, and you’re a homicide detective, you’ve experienced death, you’ve seen it, up close, daily.  You probably have a stack of unsolved cases in your office, but this time, you’ve got the chance to speak with a victim directly, this is unheard of in homicide work.  

Vincent D’Onofrio (John Lange) and Andre Braugher (Detective Pembleton) smack this out of the ball park.  D’Onofrio portrays his character like someone who doesn’t quite understand the gravity of the situation.  He’s incredibly hostile, and at one point compares himself to that of a death row inmate, he doesn’t even get a last meal.  He displays that he wasn’t an easy person to get along with, so this is his execution.  While at the same time, expresses shock when the firemen go through “a feat of engineering, for me”.  Again, he knows he’s a bit of a jerk, but surprised at whats being done at attempts to save him.  He continues taking out his frustrations on Pembleton the entire time, along with the EMS medic, all the while, he had no one to blame but himself, and the guy who pushed him, but seriously, situational awareness buddy, you’re asking for trouble when you’re too close to the tracks like that.  He’s going through the grieving process.  Pembleton doesn’t know what to do.  At a few points, he stands up and backs away, surprised by Lange’s hostility. 

He’s confronted with the fear of his own mortality. 

Eventually, Lange dies.  The climax leading up to his death is intense.  Every official on the scene is scrambling to prepare for this, Pembleton and Lange lock eyes and Lange says something about sugar maple trees and how they turn their leaves over when a storm is approaching to suck in the rain.  When you’re about to die, your mind goes haywire.  I like to think that this is a place your consciousness goes as a way to cope with impending doom.  You’ll hear stories from the battlefield about soldiers who were mortally wounded making jokes before dying.  It’s a coping mechanism.  No one wants to die, but it’s a sad fact that we all do.  If you had forty-five minutes to live, how would you act?  Angry?  Sad?  Apologetic?  Remorseful?

In the closing scene, Pembleton regurgitates the sugar maple fact to his partner as they’re
leaving the scene.  He says, “You learn something new everyday”.  I think he learned a lot more that day.  Then again, it’s just another day in the city.

Resuming The Job Search

I'm a student. My main priority right now is to graduate college. That's it. Not get married. Not to party. Not to please anyone else. Get that useless piece of paper. At this very moment though, my life right now, is summer vacation/work. Although, my financial situation has deterred any form of extracurricular activities , I find myself putzing around my apartment on most days.

My original plan last fall was to find some landscaping company, or something along those lines, around Spring and ask if they had any open "gofer" positions come summertime. Nothing wrong with that. You're outside, an honest days work.

Well, mid-October I had an unfortunate injury. Tore the achilles. At 30 years old, this was something I never planned on happening (who plans injuries?).

- When I was in my teens, I tore ligaments in my knee that has been a consistent issue.
- Prior to that, I dislocated my pinky finger in a fight at school.
- In 2009, I had bilateral hip surgeries.
- 3 herniated discs in my spine. Probably related to the hip surgeries.
- Arthritis in my left ankle (the same ankle I tore the achilles).
- Sleep disorders.

The last 4 issues are directly related to my military service. Uncle Sam takes care of me, sometimes. I can't really complain, there are others out there that have had less-than-fortunate experiences with the Veterans Affairs, but I've had my issues with them. No one said it would be easy. Anyway...

I'm mobile. Fully capable of working. Looking to find employment in an industry I like, I scour the internet for job postings and post my pleas on social networking sites. Fortunately, a friend was looking for a Production Assistant on an upcoming reality web-series that would later be broadcasted on a network. He knew I loved the industry, had some understanding of the industry (all theory of course), and that I'm reliable (read: would actually show up on time).

Considering it was my only option, minus delivering food and torturing my car, I jumped on board (Note: I wasn't about to turn away my opportunity to work, nor a chance to work on-set).

- It was a small crew, like 5-6 people. I was the lowest man on the totem poll. I knew my place and didn't speak unless spoken too. Being the new PA, it was like being a Private in the Army all over again (something I know extremely well).

- Reading TAPA's blog and others like it sorta prepared me for the "on-set experience". I kept my expectations low and was nice to everyone.

- The "Talent", just like all people, are hit or miss. Some are prima donnas. Some are humble. My job with them was to make sure they had what they "needed" and assist everyone on the crew... decaf,  grande chai latte, not too hot, soy milk, with a straw.  Get coffee, pfft, too easy. Get coffee multiple times, too easy. Move this. Move that. Sit here. Watch this. Don't let anyone come through here.

- People don't like being addressed as "Sir" or "Ma'am".

- Your day rate is for 12 hours. The equation is 8hrs+4hrsOT=day rate. Anything after that is double time and golden time.

- Read your deal memo. Otherwise you might not get those things.

- I'm lucky I got paid at all, considering I had ZERO set experience.

- Be prepared to work long hours, but only actually work for a few of those hours.
Hurry up and wait. Just like the Army!

- Eat now, taste it later.

- HYDRATE!
The last two days of shooting were a scorcher in NYC and I nearly passed out.

- Know your lingo. The rest of the crew doesn't have the time to explain what something is. Even though it's not a bad thing to ask questions (this shows an genuine interest in a field, people love talking about themselves), but you should have a common understanding of what something is: a bag of dirt/sand, C Stands, big babies, etc.

- Pack the vehicle in accordance to gear importance. If the camera has to be unloaded quickly, it doesn't help if it's packed first, with 20 road cases stacked on top of it.

- Save receipts.

- Always make sure you have gaffers tape.

- Some people aren't what they seem to be. Some suit saw that I was wearing a Bouncing Souls t-shirt and we went on to have a discussion about the "scene" and all the bands we've seen.

- Even if you're absolutely sure you know how to do something, don't say anything. It's probably someone else's job and that's not why you're there.

- Be eager to assist, but not over eager. Just like in the Army, when you volunteer to do something, the next thing you know, you're digging trenches on the grenade range. That being said, you're never "above anything".

That pretty much sums it up. I'm sure there are other things, however I can't recall much. We did so much in such a short timespan that everything's a blur.


So what's next? Back to scouring the internet for some jobs. I made a few contacts on those shoots, so hopefully I can email them asking if they need any assistants or whatever. It's a long shot since I'm still green, but it never hurts to ask. Hell, I might even do something for free, just to get experience. We drove past a couple of big shoots in NYC. Part of me is tempted to walk up to the sets and ask for the PM to see if I can get hired on the spot. Doubtful though, I've read that it's a No No to do that.

Regardless, school starts up again in the fall. I'm eager to get back into the swing of things. I just have to decide what to actually declare as my major, haha. Talking to those on the crew, everyone either majored or minored in Filmmaking. But they also said that it wasn't necessary. Just work. No one has ever asked to see their transcripts or their degree. Production below the line is all blue collar. A trade just like carpentry or plumbing or electrical.

I know what you might be thinking, "Just major in Film, you seem to enjoy it, and that's what you want to do with your life, so study that". The problem with that is it's expensive and Uncle Sam doesn't cover a lot of those costs. The big two film schools are NYU and USC. No one gives a shit if you went West Milford University and studied under some schmuck who worked on a Demi Moore movie in 1994.

When you're first starting out, they only want a reliable body.
- If you're on time, you're late.
- When you're at work, work.

I told myself that once I started down this path, I'd study something else, something to fall back on and pursue my "dream". The problem with that is nothing else appeals to me.

- I'm terrible at mathematics.
- The business world is too uptight.
- I don't understand the IT industry.
- When I worked in kitchens, I never ate.
- Kids piss me off.
- I don't want to work in any sort of Law Enforcement or Civil Service industry.

In 5 years, I'll be an alcoholic selling used Toyotas, haha!

But at least I'll have my degree.

Youtube And Beyond. Part 3

Launched roughly 7 years ago, Freddiew is one of the largest Youtube Channels out there. They have almost 6Million subscribers and a total combined views of over 800Million. That's insane.

So what is Freddiew? Well, it's a channel that releases an action short movie every week (they have since slowed down drastically, but more info on that later).

Just a couple of dudes that are into video games and bad action movies. I give them a lot of credit. Go on Youtube and search "action short", you'll get over 1Million matches. How did it work for them?

They defined their goals, listened to their audience, and made consistent, quality content.

The last one is tricky. When I say consistent, I mean they followed a schedule/routine. Think about network sitcoms. Your favorite show airs on the same day, at the same time, for a season. If your show aired at random times, you'd never watch it, because you'd never know when it was on (DVR has changed this, but it still remains true). But it's also consistently good content. Who doesn't like an action movie? Transformers is awesome because it has shit blowing up, not because it's a deep character study (although Michael Bay can still suck a dick, but the man is good at what he does).

What defines "good content"? Well, what do you want to see? If you want to see something that looks good, make sure you have a high def camera. If you want to see a character driven story, write your ass off. What I've noticed is that majority of the people watching internet shorts are more concerned with the video quality of a movie, versus the story quality. Which is the same with people who go to movie theaters. I'm guilty of this too, if I see a show or movie on television that's broadcasted in Standard Definition, I'll painstakingly search for it in HighDEF, before settling on the former.

Although, more often than not, if an internet short has terrible audio quality, but good video quality, people won't watch it. Whereas, if the video quality is mediocre, but the audio is really good, they'll stick around. Sorry to get all technical, but think about the last time you watched shitty internet video, it was painful wasn't it? If you can find the balance between good audio and good video, you're halfway there.

But what about after you've launched your channel and you've gotten a million views?

Now you can take it to Kickstarter and Indiegogo. It seems fair to do it this way. You've gained your audience. The Freddiew channel existed for a few years before hopping onto Kickstarter for their series Video Game High School (season 1 & season 2), combined total: Over $1Million in donations. They deserve it. They're a couple of dudes who liked making short videos on Youtube, now they have careers. They aren't Spike Lee or Zach Braff or James Franco or Kevin Smith.

Take a look at Griffin Hammond, host of the Youtube Channel, Indy Mogul, a community driven network dedicated to educating viewers on how to make a movie. Griffin recently set out to make a documentary about Sriracha, that red hot sauce that hipsters love (I love Sriracha by the way).

Now Griffin isn't a famous filmmaker by any definition. He's a videographer by trade and hosts a Youtube show. I don't know exactly how much work goes into the show, but I can't imagine it's difficult, the content is community driven, he just has to piece it together and come up with some how-to's here and there (not trying to downplay it here, for all I know he sleeps 1 hour a day and rips his hair out, haha). But he set out and shot a documentary on hot sauce. Then he set up a Kickstarter asking for $5k to get his movie out there. He ended up receiving over $20k. This is totally okay with me. Why?

BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY SHOT THE MOVIE!

It's already finished. He only wanted $5000 and he got over $20,000. Why? Because he has his fan base, albeit relatively small compared to Kevin Smith, but they're fans nonetheless, and because, apparently people want to see a movie about hot sauce, which says a lot about our society. 22 Veterans commit suicide everyday, but hot sauce gets a movie...

Should Griffin taken the full risk and financed the entire aspect of his film? Absolutely. When you're fully committed to something, you're all in. But he wasn't unreasonable with his request. It wasn't $2Million, it was 5 grand.

Filmmaking, just like any business, is risk taking. Take look at the film For Lovers Only. Rumored to cost roughly $1200, the film has grossed over $500k. That's insane. For the cost of a vacation, this guy made a movie. There was no crowd funding here. Social networking is totally responsible for this taking off. 

Side Note: I've read that people complained about the audio being crappy in that film, so keep what I said in mind, find a balance between good audio and good video.

Kevin Smith once gave a bit of advice to a student about how to get movie funding.

When he shot Clerks, he financed most of the movie on Credit Cards. This is both the best and worst advice I've ever heard.

Since the movie isn't a physical medium, there's nothing to repossess. So go ahead and shoot your movie on your Visa, and the banks can't do shit. On the other side of this, you'll have about a 1% percent chance at selling that movie and making that money back. So if your budget is Clerks ($27k), you'll have fun reminiscing over that $27,000 mistake from back in your 20's. Along with still paying for it... while living in your parents basement.

So do yourself a favor, don't listen to Kevin Smith. As a matter of fact...

Fuck Kevin Smith.

That jerkoff still owes me a job (NSFW).

***Kevin, if you're reading this, WHEN'S GONNA BE MY TIME MAN??? I DID YOUR COMIC BOOK SHOW AS A FAVOR, WHERE'S THE RECIPROCATION???***

Kevin Smith - Estimated Net Worth: $25Million.


So there you have it. I could go on and on about the state of filmmaking, independent or not. The subject has been beaten to death. This whole thing stemmed from a discussion on Facebook with a fellow movie buff of mine and I figured I'd post my thoughts about it.

Go make a movie, God knows I want too...

The State of Independent Film. Part 2

Ahhhhh, Kevin Smith. My hero. When you look at us on paper, we have a lot in common. He worked at a video store, I worked at a video store. He's from NJ, I'm from NJ. His father died from a heart attack, my father died from a heart attack. I could go on, but I already sound creepy.

Kevin Smith made his first film for roughly, $27-28k. Clerks has a massive cult following and remains arguably, his best film. I love all his films, including Cop Out (some debate that it's not his film since he didn't write it) and Jersey Girl.

Fast Forward a career and out comes Red State. Completely independently funded ($4Million), Red State premiered at Sundance with Smith saying he would sell the movie "auction style", with the highest bidder taking home his (and his crew) hard work.

What ended up happening, according to critics, is Kevin Smith "imploded". He bought his own movie for $20.00 and proceeded to tell the audience that, and I'm paraphrasing here:

"It's messed up that a distributor will buy my $4Million movie, pump $16Million in Marketing and BAM! just like that it's a $20Million movie. So before we see any of the films profits, the distributor has to recoup expenses, plus interest, while you critics bash every film I've ever made. It'll take years before that money comes back."

The man has a point. He's absolutely right.

So what did he do? Well, he hit the road, with cast in tow and showed his audience the film and gave them a Q&A. And it worked. (Kevin talks about the tour numbers here, a long read)

But do you know why this worked? BECAUSE HE'S KEVIN FUCKING SMITH! Who knows what he'll do when it comes to Clerks III, his final film, but he's said he will NOT crowd fund the movie. I respect that. Why take money out of the wallet of the "next Kevin Smith"?

He said he toured with Red State because he wanted to show future filmmakers that it's possible to show your movie without playing the Hollywood dance. Well, when Ned Stevens from Bumfuck, Iowa makes his movie and starts to tour with it, will he have the same success as Kevin Smith? No. Not a chance in hell. I think all new filmmakers have something like a 1% chance at making it in the industry. But that really counts on what you consider "making it".

Kevin Smith has his audience. His fans will see his movies. So how does a new filmmaker gain an audience?

Youtube.

It's as simple as that (there's actually more to it, but yeah, it's that easy). When Clerks came out, you had barely any options when it came to equipment/distribution. Now, you can shoot a movie, cut the movie, and distribute the movie for under $2k easy. Marketing through social networking is free. If you make good content that appeals to a specific demographic, you'll get viewers. When you gain viewers, you can get Partnership. Then you start making money (not a lot of money from what I've read, anywhere from $.50 to $3.00 per thousand views). After that you can choose what to do, either continue making content for Youtube, or sign onto the big leagues. Believe me, when companies catch wind that you have your own audience, and you're doing it all yourself, they'll come snooping around. Or you can do both! That's the beauty of being your own boss.

But let's look at a Youtube channel that's done really well...

Why Zach Braff, Kristen Bell, and Spike Lee Can Go Fuck Themselves. Part 1

It seems that Spike Lee is the next celebrity in line to use the platform of internet panhandling to gain funds for his next film.

Fuck Spike Lee. Seriously, fuck him.

This aggravates me so much. First it was Kristen Bell with the Veronica Mars Kickstarter. Then it was Zach Braff with his bullshit. Now I've just read that James Franco launched one a while back for his bullshit too. But he just dressed it up differently.

What in the flying fuck is this shit? Who do these people think they are?

I'll tell you:

Zach Braff - Estimated Net Worth:    $22Million.
Kristen Bell - Estimated Net Worth:  $8Million.
Spike Lee - Estimated Net Worth:   $40Million.
James Franco - Estimated Net Worth:  $20Million.

I don't know how reliable the source is for that information, I just googled it. But I can believe these numbers to be fairly accurate. I mean, it's frigging SPIKE LEE, I'd think he's worth more than that.

On one side, I can understand why they do it. When you get studio money to make a movie, you lose things like creative control or final cut of your film, which can take away from your "vision". But at the end of the day, the movie business is still a business. They're giving you a boat load of money so you can go galavanting out on the street making a movie, of course they're going to want some control.

Artistic integrity of a film is one thing, but out right begging is frigging bullshit. You, the "Artist", are potentially sitting on millions of dollars, and you're asking you fans to shell out their hard earned cash so you can make the movie you want? Are you kidding me?!?

"Ohhhhh mannn, I really wanna make my movie, MY WAY, but I don't wanna risk losing my money... I KNOW! I'll ask my diehard fans, the ones who have stuck with me since my humble beginnings, to do it. Hell, they only slave away at jobs they hate to earn a subpar income. Meanwhile, this will allow me to play PRETEND! Thanks guys, you really mean a lot to me!"

As a person who wants nothing more in life than to work in the film industry, write and direct films, rub elbows with known, established artists, this seriously pisses me off to no end. It's also a reason why I don't want to be in that industry. None of these people are grounded anymore. I know it's Hollywood and celebrities don't have the same issues that us common folk have, but seriously??? Think about how long you have to work to earn your money.

In my life, I've worked in Theater, some Film/TV, and the Military. In between all that, I've held meaningless dead-end jobs. I know how hard I've worked to earn my money. I've experienced being treated like absolute garbage to earn my money. The last thing I want to do is shell out that cash so Zach Braff can make a movie his way...

I say this as a fan of all these celebrities, but...

Fuck Spike Lee. Fuck Zach Braff. Fuck Kristen Bell. Fuck James Franco.

So what's a new filmmaker to do? Let's take a look at a Writer/Director I admire... a lot...

Remember the good times...

I lost another friend. Found out this morning. I can't act like I was his best friend, but I knew him and I knew him pretty well.

When I think of him, two words come to mind; charisma and talent.

He had a such a knack for life. Lived without fear. Which was funny considering he was a hemophiliac, we used to tell him to take it easy as he would crawl through a window surrounded by broken glass. He'd turn to us and give us that mischievous smile he had, almost saying, "What? Are you afraid?"

We were part of this youth group that ran a haunted house in a church. It wasn't necessarily a church youth group, it was a youth group that happened to be located in a church. After all the Halloween shenanigans passed, they'd have a sleep over and we'd watch movies all night. Each room had a different theme, with the biggest room running the Star Wars trilogy in surround sound. The advisors of the group, the "grown ups",  would lock the doors at like 9-10pm and we couldn't leave, or if we did leave, we couldn't get back in unless we had an inside source open the door for us. This was a coordinated effort considering that cell phones weren't the norm back then. Nowadays you could just text your partner in crime, "Hey, open the door for me...LULZ!!!" and you're home free.

Anyway...

Long after everyone would pass out to a galaxy far, far away... We'd sneak out to handle our business and be the rejects that our little town labeled us. It was a badge we all wore proudly, mostly because we mocked it. Even after others in our group passed out or moved on for other fun, him and I would still be trucking, passing the bottle (I took small sips because I'm a lightweight with booze, he would down a bottle of JD like water). It got to the point where we would crave food and raid the church fridge for breakfast. He was so eccentric in his speech, "Let's enjoy breakfast on the veranda". It's suburban New Jersey, at a church, there is no veranda, but that was him, making things better than what they were.

We turned the kitchen into a culinary disaster. Eggs, flour, milk, coffee grinds, juice, all over the place. I mean, we were making scrambled eggs with coffee, something simple, but if Gordon Ramsey witnessed this, he'd certainly fire both of us.

We watched the sun come up, eating terrible eggs, drinking terrible coffee. When the time came to retreat, we realized the fatal mistake: We locked ourselves out. My friend didn't hesitate. Knowing that everyone was asleep, he climbed onto the awning and began searching for unlocked windows. I watched nervously (and safely I might add) from the grass, thinking, "One wrong step and we're in a lot of trouble". All it would take is some nosey geriatric going on their morning walk, observing this spectacle of two teenagers outside a church, looking haggard, one of them scaling a building, trying to break-in, next thing you know the cops show up making all sorts of a ruckus and we both get detained. Thankfully, this didn't happen, and my friend found an unlocked window and opened the door.

The youth group also organized an annual ski trip. Which meant, "Go away for a weekend, sneak a lot of booze and whatnot, spend the entire weekend in your hotel room, never sleep, maybe ski/snowboard". The advisors were adement about finding paraphernalia. They searched luggage, toiletries, physical pat downs, but we still found a way to have a good time. I think out of the many years I was involved with the youth group, I hit the slopes once, the rest of the time we partied like we were in The Rolling Stones. Funny, considering he was THE Beatles fanatic.

We watched the demolition of a local avionics tower from his rooftop. We almost missed it because of pre-demolition rituals.

Then there was the music.

Growing up, music was an outlet. I wasn't a phenomenal musician as a kid and my tastes reflected that. My friend however, was a phenomenal musician. It's like the piano and him were made for each other. He could play anything and I mean ANYTHING on the piano. Watching his fingers on the keys was like witnessing God speak, it was amazing. They way he did it was effortless.

It's funny thinking about these times. I (we) did a lot of dumb shit as kids. I look at my nieces and nephew and try to imagine what they're going to be like when they reach that age. Will they make the same choices? How will I react when and if they make those choices? The only reason is because I know, at that age, you're invulnerable, you're immortal, nothing can kill you. But thinking about all the dumb shit as an adult, it's a miracle I made it out alive. But at the same time, it's nothing compared to what could've been. There are a million other childhoods that were worse.

My friend taught me to be fearless. Even with his condition. He never directly said it, but his actions spoke volumes. He never backed down from anything or anyone. I wish I was more like him in that retrospect.

All this makes me think of all the friends I've lost too soon. I wish I was a better friend to them, maybe they'd still be here. But at the same time, I know I can't save everyone. I hope my friends realize this too.

Rest easy Christian. Know that you are loved and dearly missed.

Well, I may have done myself in...

Recent entertainment news said that Friends was coming back for another season (this has since been debunked and nothing more than a rumor). I have to admit, I was stoked. I was also a little concerned, hasn't everything that needed to be said, already been said? What could they do with these characters that I actually cared about?

Originally, I didn't actually like Friends. In all honesty, it was safe to say I hated Friends. It was an unbelievable show. How the hell do these people manage to survive, even thrive, in Manhattan? They couldn't possibly afford those apartments! Ross is a psycho stalker. Chandler is a coke fiend. Joey is a deadbeat moron. Monica has severe OCD and should be locked in an asylum. Rachel is a stuck up rich girl with daddy issues. And Phoebe is so messed up from her childhood, she doesn't even live on this planet... She's also a terrible musician, yet, manages to maintain a consistent gig at a coffee house.

Why would anyone like this show?

Because, people related to it and in my later years, I related to it. Much like how I related to Seinfeld (hated that show too, now, I own all the seasons on DVD). My sister LOVES(D) this show. I remember her and my other sister (both older) designating Thursday nights to this show. You couldn't talk when it was on, and heaven help you if there was a power surge or you changed the channel... It's a safe bet that my sister knows these characters. Me? Well, I'd get nauseous whenever I would hear that ridiculous theme song. Still do.

I cared for the characters and their quirks are what made them such great characters. It's unfortunate that later in their careers, the actors actually became their characters (I'm looking at you Matthew Perry and Matt LeBlanc), much like that Cosmo Kramer...

When I was stationed in Georgia, away from all the things that I called home, and had a horrible day (or week), I would throw on a Friends DVD and honestly forget about what was bothering me. It really was a funny show. Thirty million other people share my sentiments.

So what now? Well, with all this hubbub, I texted my sister that the reunion was a rumor (sadface). She replied she knew (no sadface). I went on to say that maybe it's good, because I don't know what else they could do with all the characters. She said that there was a ton of things they could do; Rachel in Paris, Monica/Chandler with the baby, etc. They could do something...

I IMMEDIATELY CALLED HER OUT!!!

Rachel never went to Paris, she got off the plane after Phoebe delayed the flight with a broken left phalange. Rachel went back to Ross because she still had feelings for him. IT WAS IN THE LAST DAMN EPISODE OF THE SERIES!!!

My sister didn't remember. She didn't remember one of the most important scenes in her favorite sitcom.

*Note: She did text me "baby", what she didn't notice was that it wasn't a baby, it was BABIES. Jack and Erica... Wrong on two accounts.

So I challenged her to a Friends Trivia. I'm pretty sure theres some stupid thing we could buy that has all the questions and whatever. Let's face it, THAT'S NOT FUN!

If she wins, I'll babysit 10 times, 6 hours each session. If I win, well, I haven't thought of anything yet, but it has to be good, really good. I suggested we switch houses, ala Friends, but that was quickly shot down... Maybe like, "buy-my-books-for-the-rest-of-my-college-semesters" good... I don't know, but it has to be good.


We need to figure out how the game will go and who will make questions. It should be a private/invite spectacle, but needless to say, I will shoot video of the preparations and some of the trivia. Make a party out of this. Honestly, it's a good reason. I don't hang out with my family enough.

A time in my life when I learned to do something well...

I’ve always been a strong rhythm guitar player.  My peers in our little music scene would say I’m a better bass player, but growing up, the six strings always drew me in with amazement, happiness, anxiety, and intimidation.  Why?  Why would something I find solace in bring on emotions from vast spectrums?  You would think a hobby, whether it be playing chess, wood-working, needle-point or even bridge, a person would be relaxed knowing that they had nothing to prove to anyone, it’s just them and the activity.  With music it’s different, because no matter where you’re from or the language you speak, music translates emotion.  A Chinese person can listen to a song written by a man from America and understand what’s going on, the tempo and melodies convey emotion.  So when you mess up in your playing, it translates in multiple languages.

After about 10 years of strong rhythm playing, it was time to step up my game and start playing some scorching leads.  Now, the important thing about being a lead player is “versatility” or the ability to play many different styles of music (any musician worth their salt is versatile in different styles regardless of position in a band or whatever, but for the sake of argument, we’re talking lead guitarists).  I figured, just like every other white male guitarist before me, I’ll steal some licks from a group I admired, Pink Floyd.  The central figure for this group is up for debate, but I feel that David Gilmour is Pink Floyd.  His fretwork is second to none, and this is evident on the seminal track, “Money”.  It’s pretty much safe to say that, “EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD (7+BILLION) HAS HEARD THIS SONG!”.  It still gives me goosebumps. 

The guitar solo kicks in around the three minute mark, air guitarists around the world rejoice in harmony as they strum in front of a mirror for the next two minutes, living the dream. Being a rhythm player, I had no clue where to start.  So, while stationed in Georgia, on a Friday night, I was determined to learn this solo. I locked myself in my barracks room and listened to the song over and over again until I knew exactly where all the changes were. “Okay, right after the saxophone solo, Gilmour comes in on a hard B and proceeds to rip...”, I told myself.  So I would play the rhythm parts from beginning to end, then I’d do it again, then, I’d do it again.  After a while, I started having fun, tweaking things here and there, playing something I thought would sound cool. It wouldn’t be a Chuck Berry style string bend, or a BB King blues walk, but just a subtle change that honestly, if you weren’t looking for it, you wouldn’t hear it. But one thing I wouldn’t change was the solo that was captured on tape in the early 1970s. 

Guitar, check. It’s a Fender Stratocaster, not the exact same Strat as Gilmour, but I’m not the same player, so it doesn’t matter.  Amp, check. It’s a solid-state amplifier, Gilmour uses tube Hi-Watts with multiple effects processors, but at the time, I was a broke PFC, so yeah, you use what you have access too, not going to stop me.  The solo came, and it was glorious. I played the entire thing, note for note. David Gilmour could not keep up with me and the smile on my face only grew as the progression went from raw and in your face, to quiet and calm, only to explode back into a fury of high pitched squeals. Two solid minutes of blues influenced rock. When I finished, I only wanted to do it again and again.  So I did, five more times, and every time the song ended, I started it right back up again, turning my amp up a little louder each time.

I finished, I was a sweaty mess. My finger tips were bleeding from the constant bending on the high E string.  I left my barracks room to enjoy a victory cigarette and look out upon the other soldiers partying in the Quad on this Friday night.  My buddy Dan was outside my door when I opened it. “Dude, what the hell was that racket? I’ve never heard such horrible playing in my life!”, he said. Dan was in his late 30s, early 40s and had a deep love of all things hair-metal. Dan could also play any song on guitar.  Dan, was a phenomenal guitarist.  I grabbed the CD and showed him who I was playing.  He laughingly shrugged off an “Okay...” and walked away.  It didn’t matter to me, because I knew what I played, and it was beautiful.  I was Fifteen again, standing in front of my bedroom mirror, playing the songs that got me interested in the six strings in the first place.  I’m Thirty-One now, I still do this weekly, and it’s still beautiful.

So here’s a joke:
How many guitarists does it take to screw in a light-bulb?
20; One to screw in the light-bulb and the other nineteen to stand around and say, “I could do that”.

Purpose Statement

I had to write a paper on my purpose statement, since I haven't written in a while, I figured I'd post it here. It's nothing serious, just a simple page or so. The class is an adult seminar, like "How to go to School Again". Easy credits, and some good techniques here and there. Meditation is a useful thing. Brings you back to center. Anyway...yeah.


When this assignment was originally given, I wrote the wrong paper.  It’s not my fault, I had the wrong book.  The stars weren’t in my favor, life goes on.  Considering I wrote some drivel on a time when, in my own mind, I was some sort of “Rock God”, I’m going to give it a go right now and use the title as a source for content.

My purpose statement.  What do I hope to achieve during my time in college.  Well, this isn’t my first attempt.  I refer to this as “Round 2” since “Round 1” didn’t work out too well.  I was fresh out of the Army, a formidable force, nothing could stop me.  I had the “Veteran Card” to play, an outstanding girlfriend, a full time job.  At the time, the idea of college seemed like a meaningless piece of paper (although, you could talk to recent graduates and ask them how their life has since improved since graduation and I’m sure you’ll receive a varied, colorful response, you’ll find a lot of them sleeping in a park in the Village).  Then it all came crashing down.  First thing to go was the girlfriend, she was a barrier in my success.  Next thing to “86”, college, waste of time, who needs it.  Finally, the job, it’s dead-end, after all, I didn’t really try that hard to find something I was both passionate about and financially beneficial.

I was wrong.  Boy was I wrong.


See, it wasn’t the girlfriend, college, or the job.  It was me.  I wasn’t who I am.  I was who I was.  I was better than everyone else.  Part of me feels it was the “Soldiers Mentality”, or “There’s no job I can’t handle, I already have a million things on my plate, give me more.  I thrive off of stress”.  I didn’t know what it was like to be “Tom” again or what “Tom” wanted.  The Army thought for me, made all my decisions.  That’s not a bad thing, neither is pride.
My entire adult life, at that point, was Army.  But right now, at this moment, and for the rest of my life, it isn’t.  I’ll always have the stories and experience, and I’ll always remember what was the best moment in my life, but it isn’t a defining moment.  I haven’t experienced that yet.
Learning from my mistakes, my purpose now is simple:
Figure out what I’d like to major in, and get my degree.
The rest, who knows.  I just want to be happy.  Even if it’s sewing soccer balls in Pakistan.

Cleaning House...

New beginnings.  I'm giving this another shot.  It's funny considering that my first, new post has to do with the recent changes of my favorite sports teams, The New York Red Bulls.  Regardless of what Chuck Klosterman says, I'm a die hard fan of soccer in America.  Major League Soccer has come a LOOOONG way, from it's humble beginnings after World Cup '94, to the waves of stars coming from abroad (some consider them past their prime), the MLS is now the third most attended sports league in America...  To summarize, in your face Douche!

But that's not what this is about.  It's about dedication.  Soccer fans define fanatic.  It takes a dedicated group of people to be a fan of "the beautiful game".  More specifically, The Supporters. NYRB has three core groups: Empire Supporters Club, Garden State Supporters, and The Viking Army; although each team within the league has their own psychos, I want to focus on my psychos.

*Note, I am not a card carrying member of any of these clever groups, I just enjoy the antics.

ESC has been around since before the beginning.  When the league was announced, these people formed BEFORE the first match was played.  I remember watching them at my first Metrostars game, I didn't get it when I was a kid, but totally get it now.  The other two spartan groups formed pretty recent in terms of age, but haven't shown any infancy in terms of dedication.

Look at that. You ever see anything like that at a Yankee game?

These groups spend countless hours, doing charity work, painting signs, embracing their team, it goes beyond fanaticism.  Not to mention money.  Traveling with the club across country, buying equipment, buying merchandise, tickets, food, beer, hotel rooms, gas, buses; it surpasses anything I've seen in any other sport.  If you've ever needed a reason to watch a match live in person, it's the Supporters.

Before I get any further, let's talk about the "pink elephant in the room".  This team has a corporate sponsor.  Pretty much everything has a corporate sponsor, but as far as professional sports teams in the United States, this is the only team with the sponsor in the name.  I hate it.  I hate that the only sports team that I like, has a beverage name, and a shitty beverage at that.  Other than mixing it with vodka, have you ever had a Redbull?  It tastes like piss.  But you know what, I don't care.  They could be called the "New York Baby Punchers", I'll still follow this team to my grave...

I'd rather see this...

Instead of this

In 2010, we got our home. Redbull Arena opened it's doors and we left the regime of Giants Stadium.  I call it, Our Cathedral.  It's my place of worship.  Like every start of a season, people came in droves.  The first few matches had near sellouts, with them dwindling as the season carries on and even though we finished 1st in the conference, and were eliminated in the semi-finals.  Hearts broken.

2011 saw much of the same, minus "the summer of draws".  We finished 5th in the conference, and again, eliminated in the semi-finals.  Hearts broken.

2012, stronger play, nearly unbeaten home record, finishing 3rd in the conference and elimination in the semi-finals.  Big shocker there...  Hearts borken.

It should come to no surprise that we have the highest payroll in the league.  Big names bring big paychecks, right?  I mean, look at the Yankees, highest payroll in all of baseball, they buy championships, why shouldn't we?  Well, that doesn't ring true. The Yankees didn't win the World Series, the Giants did, and they place 7th overall in payroll.  But look at the track record.  The Yankees have 27 World Series Titles.  Our league is young (not even 20 years old), so it's really no comparison, the Yankees have been a baseball team for over 100 years, I would HOPE they'd have 27 titles, and I hate the Yankees.  Not necessarily the team, mostly the arrogant fans. Actually, I just hate Yankees fans. Not all of them though... ARGH! I'm running in circles. I digress.

So if money equals titles, where's ours? 

Thierry Henry, arguably one of the greatest living players, is the captain of our team, and yet on the pitch during play, if you watch closely, runs when he wants too.  I mean, sure he's not as fast as he used to be and honestly, when you see his resume, he has nothing to prove in the soccer world.  But I mean, if the league and club owners want the rest of the world to take the MLS seriously, we have to treat it like a serious league and not a retirement league.  

Henry still has it though, I'll give him that.

Aside from the olimpico goal, everything you've just seen was quality service. It wasn't just "Henry being Henry", and I'm not saying anyone could've done it. But watch it again and you'll see 3 instances of solid passing to him in open space. Also, nothing against the goal from the corner, but, I coach a U-13 team and I have a kid in 7th grade that did that, just sayin'... (Edit: Original video has since been deleted, hopefully this stays up for a while.)

Quote - Empire of Soccer

“When you’re in a competition or and you play on a team, you want to win everything you can. It’s very important to win it for the franchise and the fans, because they’ve been waiting a long time to have it,’’ said Henry, acutely aware of the team’s 16-year title drought.

Quote - New York Post

“We want to win it for the fans. They’ve been suffering for a little while. We know it’s not easy to win in New York, but we’re going to have a go this year and first off think about making the playoffs, that’s the most important thing. But again, don’t get it twisted. I want to win the MLS Cup.’’

Then stop throwing your hands up in frustration when something doesn't go right, Murphy happens, deal with it. You've won the World Cup for Pete's sake! You like mentoring players? Well nothing against Connor Lade, but mentor Strikers, instead the club makes the decision to send a promising player away on loan. Corey Hertzog played 20 games in a 3rd Division league and scored 11 goals. With some "Henry Time" he could've been a contender... And don't blame this on the fact that it wasn't up to him, because you know he has influence. I'll admit though, watching Henry and Lade juggle at practice is a sight. It reminds me of a father playing with his son in the backyard.

But this isn't a Sunday league. It's pro soccer...

Which brings me to now. This afternoon it was announced that NYRB wouldn't be renewing the options for 10 players. This comes after the release of the Sporting Director, Head Coach and Assistant Coach... What is going on???

Among the players released are fan favorites Stephen Keel and Jan Gunnar Solli. Who wasn't released? Rafa Marquez and Roy Miller, two players who the majority of fans despise. Just check out the comments.  I've spoken with Rafa, and in broken English he said, "I want to be the best, I want to be Champion" after a devastating loss to rivals DC United. Well, stay healthy. On the pitch you look like you don't want to be there and you're just collecting a check.

What's left for us? What does the future hold?

Well, I hope Petke stays on as Head Coach. The man knows this league and American soccer. I love that big names like Kaka want to come to this league, but we need more development of our homegrown players. We need to stop treating this like a retirement league, or the bastard child of Premier Leagues around the world.  We need to actually "Develop" our players, not send them away.

Stephen Keel had a hell of a season in 2011, making 16 appearances and 13 starts. Watching him in the defensive box was a sight to be seen and due to his flowing locks, he wasn't hard to miss.

Solli (not a homegrown player) had some nasty footwork. Making 12 appearances this year, he scored 2 goals. That's not bad, considering Roy Miller is probably one of the reasons for our failure to advance pass the semi-finals.

Maybe the Front Office should take a little nod from the Sounders, since they like to adopt our supporting skills...