I Get On My Bike...

...ride through the world, through the green lights.
But when I think of all your advice, I narrow my eyes."
-They Might Be Giants

I hope you'll begrudge me a bit of artistic licence in quoting TMBG here, as its not completely on topic, but anyways... Today, I'm ranting about the relatively recent trend of sit-down bicycling.

More formally, they're known as "recumbent bicycles." Less formally, they're known as idiot machines. OK, I simply don't care about the ergonomic benefits of this technology, or any calorie-burning advantages it might add to your exercise regimen. It just looks frigging stupid. As today's framing graphic (above) illustrates, it's like saddling your office chair to a set of wheels and claiming it to be either a mode of transportation or a form of exercise.

Now, as is my trend, we must note acceptable caveats to the object of criticism. One is the hand-pedaling version of this bike for people who have physical conditions that prevent the use of conventional bikes. Also is the bike that powers an ice cream cart or other rolling concession stand. Yeah, it looks stupid, but the convenience factor of these rolling Andersons' outweighs.

P.S. the alternative quote I was considering to introduce this post was Arlo Guthrie's fabulous "The Motorcycle Song (The Significance of the Pickle)." Please, please check it out if you haven't before, as well as the even more grand "Alice's Restaurant Massacre."

College A-Capella

So, today's topic is one that's been stuck in my craw for a while. This is the abject commonality of the all (or nearly all) white male college a-capella group.

Now, having been in some vocal ensembles in my day, I will stipulate that these guys are usually pretty good singers and do try hard. And I actually know a few people who were in these types of groups and this post might get me on their shit lists. But the dorkiness factor is so goddamn high (I know, like I should talk). But, really. It's just absurd to see a half-dozen college guys standing on a stage doing some re-worked version of Sixteen Military Wives or Karma Police. Yeah, I like those bands too, but there's a reason why those songs weren't originally done a-capella in the first place. You simply can't sing a lyric like "her Hitler hair-do is making me feel ill" or "16 cannibal kings, wondering brightly what the dinner bell will bring" in a three piece suit or a polo shirt. Moreover, the faux a-cappella instrumentation like the vocal air guitar or the spit-choke sound of your "rhythm section" is wholly embarrASSing.

Now, I've got no problem with bands who do original songs that are meant to only be a-capella, or even an a-capella group doing regular vocal numbers. But if you've ever heard that song "Who's Got the Hooch?", you've certainly realized the danger posed by unchecked a-capella proliferation.

Mel Kiper

After awarding ourselves a YLLAGDDI Award for not posting for a full week, we'll get back on the horse with a pretty timely topic: ESPN's NFL "draft guru" Mel Kiper, Jr.



Dude has a seriously inflated ego for having a gig that only requires him to work one weekend a year. Here are some other folks that only work one day or one weekend a year. I mean, its not like the guy ever was a NFL G.M., head coach, or even a scout. And yet somehow he is considered the great prognosticator of all future NFL talent. He has a fundamental misunderstanding that even though that his "Big Board" might have a player rated lower or higher, some teams must draft for "need," not just "value." Beyond that, the abomination that is the man's hair style is nearly unrivaled.

Thankfully, we now need not concern ourselves with this man's feckless rantings until this time next year.

Resistance is Futile

OK, so we all are cognizant of the fact that cellphones and their related accessories have made life in the early part of the 21st century immeasurably easy. I can only think of how much time could have been saved during the high school years with easy phone access to coordinate rides, practice times and the like. But there are a few aspects and habits that have developed with cellphone proliferation that need to be commented on. So, this post begins an occasional series on cellphone etiquette. Today's topic in this vein is the prominence of bluetooth earpieces.

There is an undeniable convenience factor to these devices. Cellphones can be awkward and cumbersome when held next to the head for more than a couple minutes. And if your employer has removed all the traditional land line phones and assigned everyone a mobile communications device, like mine has, then it is sometimes to take notes or send emails during a phone call with one hand holding the phone in place. Lastly, but more importantly, is the difficulty and risk of using a cell while driving. For all these situations, a wireless (aka "bluetooth") attachment that fits snuggley in the ear cavity makes life much better.

The gripe comes when users of these products leave them married to their person for long periods of time when not using their phone. They look like an early incarnation of the Borg. Slowly, over time, these electronics will weave their way into your brain and become part human, part machine. If you consider these fears overhyped, then I'll provide another reason to take the damn thing out when you're not going to be making calls: appropriateness. There are many situations when social norms suggest you should truncate your use of these devices. Such examples can be found here, here and here.

So, while we're sympathetic to your need to use earpieces in appropriate circumstances, take them out the rest of the time, lest you look like a goddamn idiot.

That's Acoustic!

Today's post is the first topic submitted by a guest; that being my younger brother. My brother is the lead singer and songwriter/guitarist/pianist for his band. He reports the following issue from his observances from playing out with other bands: the one-trick pony of the guitarist who only plays acoustic guitar, without switching to other instruments or singing.

Its important to start this discussion with a definition in the negative. Meaning, the following things are acceptable: acoustic guitar player who sings lead or background vocals; a guitarist who plays both electric and acoustic, but doesn't sing; a guitarist who also plays piano, keyboards, bass, drums or any other instrument. So, that leaves us with the dude who is in the band only to play the acoustical guitar. To music industry insiders, this is the ultimate personification of flotsam; freeloaders along for the ride and the cheap/free beer and adoring crowds. Matter-of-factly, it doesn't take that much talent, effort or charisma to hang up on stage with your Ovation or Epiphone and play rhythm. To understand the polar opposite of the acoustic-only also-rans, you look to the lead singer/lead guitarist. Great examples of such performers can be found here, here, here, and here.

Finally, it is important to note that if your band is comprised only of acoustic guitar players, is doing an unplugged set, or you're a duo act where guitarist is there to play lead parts on the acoustic, these instances are considered kosher.

Otherwise, you look like a gooddamn idiot.

Coeds & Tennis Shoes

Today's post is a kritikism of language, unlike yesterday's, which opined on social protocol. There are a couple words and/or phrases commonly used by the generation(s) previous to mine, especially that of our parents that, simply put, are outdated. First example: "coeds."

I'm led to believe, through contextual use, that there was once a time when men and women were not permitted to attend college together, or that once they were, the concept was so new and radical that an expression was needed to delineate those colleges and universities where such co-matriculation (2 posts in a row!) was in practice. These were dubbed "co-educational" institutions, or, in the shortened vernacular use, "coed." Interestingly enough, only female students who attended those schools were referred to as "coeds." This use can be observed through a reference in the popular feature film, That Thing You Do!, when lead guitarist Lenny Haise (played with aplomb by Steve Zahn) exclaims "college girls: coeds, by the fistful!" To provide a translation for today's use, I believe the same sentiments would be conveyed by phrases such as "college girls," "female college students" or even the multi-gender "college kids." I believe there are even short length feature films available through the intertubes or late night television advertisements which feature such students and the things they may or may not be doing.
Secondly, we arrive at the term "tennis shoes." Again, through some anthropological research, we've uncovered that in the history of footwear, most people wore more formal shoes at all times, whether in formal or more relaxed situations. However, as the professional game of tennis – whether singles or doubles play – rose in popularity over the 20th century, its athletes required and received a form of athletic footwear that allowed both improved performance and comfort. Not surprisingly, these articles became known as tennis shoes. Corresponding with the sport's ascending popularity, spectators began demanding the shoes for their own, recreational use. The sports apparel industry quickly responded, supplying department stores, shoe stores and cobblers everywhere with the vogue, non-sports related fashion item, and perhaps, although maybe not at the same time, polo shirts with little alligators on them, and headbands in various hues. Sensing the opportunity to capitalize on a yet-untapped market of non-formal footwear. Retailers began adapting the not-yet as popular "basketball shoe" for non-athletic purposes. However, for some unspecified reason, the phase "basketball shoes" did not indoctrinate itself in the cultural milieu to the same degree as its tennis counterpart. Needing a new term to promote the product, the footwear industry zeroed-in on the brand of "sneaker." The phrase was a smash with the public, and now, nearly a quarter-century later, sneaker is the established phrase for all types of footwear that are not shoes, sandals or slippers. Today, you may also know these products as "hops," "kicks" or "tires."

Well, those are about the only examples I can come up with. Oh, wait, here's one: Oriental. Except, unlike the above references, this term is not only out-dated, but is generally considered taboo, if not offensive. To the degree that I won't even discuss its use here, but here's a start.

And, one more for the road: buzz. Very Jesus Christ Superstar (which isn't actually that bad, so long as its the original studio version with Ian Gillian).

Sudden Change in Momentum

As much as the absurdity of the Flyerdom can cause rankles among hockey fans, our next topic might be more universally understood, especially by regular subway commuters.

The situation: you're matriculating your way through the course of your daily commute on your local subway system, and then suddenly, the person in front of you fails to continue their forward progress down the platform, escalator or subway vehicle.
If you're properly aware and mojile ([moh-gy-el], a blend of the English words "mobile" and "agile;" for vernacular use, consult local experts T. O'Gorman or P.Johnson), you can sidestep this self-absorbed idiot and hopefully manage not to twist or sprain an ankle. If you're not so lucky, you'll plow head-on into their suspended progress. This is likely to result in a lecture from that same person on "watching where you're going" or the equivalent of the motor vehicle warning of "following too close." As if you were a mind-reader, able to predict their random acts of lunacy. For those of you who happen to encounter these unfortunate events, here's a handy reply. Or this.

High-risk locations: Smithsonian, Pentagon City, Gallery Place-Chinatown
Low-risk locations: New York Avenue, Forest Glen, West Falls Church

Philadelphia Phylers

Fitting for this inaugural post, we'll rant and roar about the buffoonery of Philadelphia Flyers and their ilk who have long offended the sensibilities of reasonable-minded hockey fans.

Last night, in their first home game of the 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs, Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, versus the upstart Washington Capitals (the series was tied 1-1 going into the game), the Phlyers handed out complementary orange tee-shirts to their fans upon arrival to the Wachovia Center. Ok, so far, not a big deal; after all, most NHL teams (and other leagues as well) provide free swag for playoff series games. The kicker here was the sole message that was printed on the garb: "Vengeance Now!"



What in the name of batty Ron Hextall does that mean? Surely, they weren't that wronged by the Game One loss to the Caps? Even if they were, how would they been able to have that many shirts printed so quickly? Or, perhaps they feel they need vengeance after last year's dismal Flyers' campaign, one of the worst in the franchise's history? Clearly, it's someone's fault other than the Flyers and their idiot former GM, Bobby Clarke, that the team was so ill-equipped to play in the new NHL (see: 4/24/06). Certainly, they are justified to cry "Vendetta! Vendetta!" like Side-Show Bob's villianous Italian son after the concrete-footed Derian Hatcher was exposed as the petty slug (get it, Sabres fans?) that he is.

Of course, outrageous fashion decisions are nothing new for the Flyers. I believe I only need one image to make my argument:
So, to echo the long-ringing chants heard in New York, New Jersey, Washington, Pittsburgh and Buffalo: "FLYERS SUCK"

Congratulations, you look like gooddamn idiots.