My Real World Application
(Note: If it's not already patently obvious to you, THE FOLLOWING ENTRY IS A JOKE. I apologize in advance if nobody thinks it's funny, but I had fun writing it, so that's why I'm posting it.)
We often wonder why in so many years of Real World, MTV has yet to cast an Asian guy in any of its seasons. But I realized that probably none of us have ever really done anything about it. So I decided to put together an application that might finally help us (meaning male Asians) break through to MTV. See below
*****
Dear MTV Producers:
I have been an avid fan of the Real World for many seasons now, mainly because of how accurately it portrays the life of a young adult in America. I think I speak for all of my peers when I say that all of us can truly relate to the setup of your show.
We all know exactly what it's like to have a job handed to us, without ever having to apply for it or show any semblance of qualifications beforehand. It's also pretty standard for us to live in a posh house that is decked out with the most luxurious furnishings (short of the stripper poles that the rappers in Cribs have, of course).
But what makes your show the most worthwhile, in my opinion, is the tremendous effort that your producers make to incorporate diversity into each cast. Other than the fact that every season centers around one or two "alpha-male" Caucasian characters (Brad from SD, Steven from LV, Danny from Austin, MJ from Philly to name a few), to go with the Caucasian, preferably blonde and hopefully attractive, but more importantly, slutty females that desire them (Cameron from SD, Trishelle from LV, Melinda from Austin, and Sarah from Philly), the show's diversity is truly admirable.
Without Real World, I would have never been introduced to such characters as the big angry black man (David from New Orleans), the not as big but just as angry black man (Steven from Seattle), the dorky angry black man (Adam from Paris), the angry black man that looks like Dee Brown (Nehemiah from Austin), and the surprisingly gay but, you guessed it, angry black man (Karamo from Philadelphia). It's not just black men who are angry in the show, though. We've also witnessed the domineering angry black woman (Coral) and the crazy psycho lesbian angry black woman (Aneesa) as well, which is important to know.
However, if there is one shortcoming to the Real World, it is the considerable lack of Asian cast members on the show. Although we have seen a few of them so far (my count is 2.5 with Janet from Seattle, Jamie from SD, and Christina from Paris), it is hardly a complete representation of the Asian race. For one, all three of the above are Korean (Christina being half-German as well), and beyond that, all three of them are female.
In my opinion, what your show desperately needs is a real Asian male representative cast member. And yes, as you may have guessed by now, I would like to offer myself, a Chinese-American male in his mid-20's, to be a part of your next cast.
If you haven't already tossed this application to the trash heap after reading that last sentence, let me just assure you that I have a lot more to offer MTV and the Real World than you may expect. If you select me as a cast member, I promise to make your next season of Real World the greatest ever.
For starters, my exceptionally charismatic personality, stinging sense of humor, and devastating good looks alone would most likely make me an instant star with your audiences. But in spite of those facts, my ultimate goal is much grander than simply generating a greater fan base and boosting Nielsen ratings.
I will make it my mission to broaden the scope of what the American public typically sees of Asian people in this country, which, if I dare say, is terribly limited if not completely inaccurate. In short, I wish to show everybody, through my presence on your show, that we (the Asian race) are much more than the quiet, exotic looking creatures that are generally content to blend into the social fabric of our country.
You might ask, "how"? Well, the ways are many, but to give you an idea of some of the things I could do on the show to enlighten your viewers:
1. Frequently talk about math.
Not many people know this, but Asians are good at math. I, for one, was on my high school's math team, went through 4 years of engineering curriculum in college, and have worked for the past 3 years as an electronics engineer. You can't do all that and not be good at math!
Anyways, I figure that instead of hooking up with hot chicks, or getting into fights at the bar, it would be cool to practice solving differential equations or something like that. And you never have to worry about getting arrested for doing integrals, which is nice. Nobody likes to see cast members getting hauled off to jail by the local cops, when that stuff happens it's just an embarrassment to the vaunted Real World franchise.
2. Eat lots of rice, with chopsticks.
Another little known fact is that Asians like rice. Actually, I'm pretty sure we invented rice, like maybe back in the 60's or something. And we don't use just forks or spoons to eat it - we use chopsticks. That may not seem like a big detail, but it's a crucial aspect of our culture that should not be overlooked.
Just the other day I was watching an episode of RW: Austin when Johanna was chowing down on some brats. How boring is that? So for me, when everyone else on the show is using forks to eat "salads" or "pasta casserole", I'll be the one scooping rice into my mouth with chopsticks.
As an added bonus, I know all the words to the song "Got Rice?", which is basically a 2Pac song with the lyrics changed to reflect AZN pride. So, in an ideal situation, you have a potential scene where I could be eating rice, with chopsticks, while singing "Got Rice?". Triple bonus!
3. Practice Kung-fu in the house
If you pay attention to the roles that Asian actors tend to get in Hollywood, it's surprising that none of them seem to ever reflect our proud heritage of Martial Arts. We're always cast as the sex symbol in romantic comedies, which is fine, but so limiting. Nobody seems to realize that Asians can also do jump kicks and fly from treetop to treetop, when that's one of our greatest assets.
So to make people more aware of our skills, I'll make sure to practice my Kung-fu around the house for everyone (and the cameras) to see. Unfortunately, I don't have a black belt in anything, but I have taken some classes in Karate and Judo and that should be good enough. Nobody will know the difference anyways, right?
4. Walk around with a crouch (to give appearance of being short)
While I respect Yao Ming's basketball skills as much as the next guy, his rise to fame has unfortunately led everyone in America to mistakenly believe that all Asians are super tall. It's an annoying stereotype, because I constantly have to deal with questions from my non-Asian friends like "Dudo, you're Chinese aren't you? How come you're not 7-foot-5?"
The fact is, there are a lot of short Asian people that are even smaller than me (I'm about 5'11 to 6' myself). The viewers of Real World need to realize this, so I plan on walking around with really bad posture for the 3 months I'm in the house. If there was an easier way to demonstrate that Asian people are not tall, I'd be all for it. But someone needs to show America the truth, and I'd gladly sacrifice my spinal well being to do so.
There's much more I could add to the above list, like wearing my thick glasses, watching Japanese anime, or singing Ricky Martin songs on Karaoke. But I think I've listed enough examples to point out some of the key elements that have been missing from Real World for so many years, due to the lack of male Asian cast members.
Hopefully the above has shown you the importance of including someone like myself in the next season of Real World. I urge you to consider my application seriously. Don't make me have to tree-hop my way over there and jump kick you!
Monday, December 12, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
The Choice For Me Is Not Lead-Free
Not sure how many of you out there will find this information useful, but in the past few weeks at work we have been getting briefings about a brewing problem in the electronics industry, which may or may not affect the general consumer population.
I won't bore you all with the details, because it's kind of a long story about the kinds of stupid stuff that happens when environmentalists and politicians get together. But basically what happened is that the European Union decided a few years ago that we need to eliminate the use of lead in electronic components.
The problem is that there is a reason people used lead in electronics to begin with, and that is the fact that there's not really many other solutions out there that work as well as lead. Again, won't bore you all with the details, but to make a long story short, lead-free electronic components tend to develop weird phenomena and don't last as long as their traditional leaded counterparts.
While research is still being done to see what can be done about the problems that come with lead-free parts, the world is already moving ahead and starting to follow suit with the European initiatives. Actually, many products have already made the transition to lead-free in the past few years - for example, if you bought a Motorola cell phone in the past 3 years, chances are good that it was built with lead-free solder. But as far as the electronics industry as a whole, 2006 is when this lead-free thing is really supposed to take hold.
Before you run out in a panic and file a class-action suit against some company for selling you a defective part, let me repeat that research is still inconclusive. Also, the problems seem to mostly affect long-term reliability. If you get a new phone every year or two anyways, which most of us do, then it probably won't matter that much. These problems do tend to affect engineers more than anybody else, and especially in the defense industry, where equipment is expected to last for many years without maintenance.
Still, certain "expert opinions" presented in our briefings have recommended the following tips:
1. If you ever have a choice of buying a "RoHS-compliant" vs. "non-RoHS-compliant" version of a product, go with the non-compliant one. (If you ask the employee at Best Buy about RoHS compliance, he probably won't have a clue what you're talking about, but just keep an eye out)
2. If possible, wait until 2007 or beyond before buying new electronics. The hope is that by then, some or most of the issues that are popping up with the lead-free transition will be worked out.
3. If you do buy an electronic gadget or appliance in the next year or so, it might not be a terrible idea to get one of those "extended warranties" that stores sometimes offer.
So take that for what it's worth. It could be a whole lot of industry uproar over nothing, like the Y2K mess. Or it might actually end up being the cause of Earth's final apocalypse. You just never know.
I'm not sure what I'm planning to do myself. I don't normally get those warranties, but maybe if I buy a new cell phone or X-box or something, I'll consider it next time. Especially cause I like keeping stuff for more than a couple years if I can. Anyways, we'll have to wait see what happens.
Not sure how many of you out there will find this information useful, but in the past few weeks at work we have been getting briefings about a brewing problem in the electronics industry, which may or may not affect the general consumer population.
I won't bore you all with the details, because it's kind of a long story about the kinds of stupid stuff that happens when environmentalists and politicians get together. But basically what happened is that the European Union decided a few years ago that we need to eliminate the use of lead in electronic components.
The problem is that there is a reason people used lead in electronics to begin with, and that is the fact that there's not really many other solutions out there that work as well as lead. Again, won't bore you all with the details, but to make a long story short, lead-free electronic components tend to develop weird phenomena and don't last as long as their traditional leaded counterparts.
While research is still being done to see what can be done about the problems that come with lead-free parts, the world is already moving ahead and starting to follow suit with the European initiatives. Actually, many products have already made the transition to lead-free in the past few years - for example, if you bought a Motorola cell phone in the past 3 years, chances are good that it was built with lead-free solder. But as far as the electronics industry as a whole, 2006 is when this lead-free thing is really supposed to take hold.
Before you run out in a panic and file a class-action suit against some company for selling you a defective part, let me repeat that research is still inconclusive. Also, the problems seem to mostly affect long-term reliability. If you get a new phone every year or two anyways, which most of us do, then it probably won't matter that much. These problems do tend to affect engineers more than anybody else, and especially in the defense industry, where equipment is expected to last for many years without maintenance.
Still, certain "expert opinions" presented in our briefings have recommended the following tips:
1. If you ever have a choice of buying a "RoHS-compliant" vs. "non-RoHS-compliant" version of a product, go with the non-compliant one. (If you ask the employee at Best Buy about RoHS compliance, he probably won't have a clue what you're talking about, but just keep an eye out)
2. If possible, wait until 2007 or beyond before buying new electronics. The hope is that by then, some or most of the issues that are popping up with the lead-free transition will be worked out.
3. If you do buy an electronic gadget or appliance in the next year or so, it might not be a terrible idea to get one of those "extended warranties" that stores sometimes offer.
So take that for what it's worth. It could be a whole lot of industry uproar over nothing, like the Y2K mess. Or it might actually end up being the cause of Earth's final apocalypse. You just never know.
I'm not sure what I'm planning to do myself. I don't normally get those warranties, but maybe if I buy a new cell phone or X-box or something, I'll consider it next time. Especially cause I like keeping stuff for more than a couple years if I can. Anyways, we'll have to wait see what happens.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Gossip Folk
Yesterday I heard the news that Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey officially separated. Can't say that I'm all that surprised, based on what we all saw in their 2 seasons of Newlyweds on MTV.
What's interesting to me is that it seemed like the tabloids have been reporting that for months, if not more than a year, about their separation. All along, both sides fiercely denied the stories, from what I can remember. But in the end it looks like they turned out to be 100% right.
I honestly don't follow the "celebrity" gossip as much as some people, so I can't write that much in depth on the subject. But as a general observation, I'm starting to wonder if maybe these entertainment shows and magazines actually do know a lot more than we give them credit for.
Like with the whole Jennifer Aniston/Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie love triangle, it started with just rumors that Brad and Angelina had a thing developing on the side. Like Nick and Jessica, they all blew off the stories at the time. But next thing you know, Brad and Jennifer break up. And since then, what do you know, a relationship between Brad and Angelina seems to be revealing itself more as time passes.
Of course, there's the times when it's pretty obvious that the stories are being manufactured or blown out of proportion to attract more attention. When you take a picture of Matt Damon kissing some actress as they're shooting a movie together, and use it to suggest that those two are hooking up, that tends to not be so credible. Or if you run a headline in huge font that asks a question like "Is J-Lo marrying her 90 year old gardener?" and then force readers to turn to page 28 to find out the answer is "No", you can't realistically expect me to fall for that trick more than 8 or 9 times before I get wiser.
I'm just wondering if maybe there's really something to these "experts" and their analysis, like how they read between the lines and break down quotes of what the celebrities say in interviews to figure out what they're really thinking.
Or there's also the more obvious stuff such as a couple not showing up to an event together, not wearing their wedding rings, etc. Although with those kinds of things, I suspect it could all just be games their publicists play to work the media. You gotta think that when the celebrities say or do certain things in public, they must know that it's going to be studied under a microscope by people who do it for a living, so they better be extra careful. Some of the "clues" they drop might be subconscious, but it's hard to tell sometimes.
Then again, maybe these gossip shows are just throwing random crap out there to see what sticks, and when stuff actually comes true, they take credit for it for breaking the news first. When it doesn't, it's easily forgotten.
Maybe I just lack understanding of the industry, like there is some sort of hierarchy of gossip magazines with varying levels of credibility Like I get the sense that US Weekly is one of the most "respected" sources, while other magazines on the same rack may not be as believable.
Now that I think about it, the same stuff happens in the sports world too, except not in the "who's dating who" kind of story. More like who's getting traded, who's getting fired, who wants to move from one team to the next. I've lost count of the number of times a rumor comes out that some coach is about to get canned, followed by the team publicly denying it and giving him a "vote of confidence", then a few days or weeks later they give him the ax anyways.
Or if any of you follow college recruiting, the rumors that fly on the internet seem to come true more often than you would expect, all coming from nameless "sources". One kid will name School #1 as his leader, then all of a sudden another school's name will pop up, followed by his parents and coaches saying "no, the School #1 is still his leader, we still like them the best", but in the end everyone is surprised when he dumps School #1 for School #2.
The whole Larry Brown "saga" of last year might be the best example. All of a sudden he decides to take time off from the Pistons because of health reasons. Meanwhile everyone is speculating that he is unhappy in Detroit, and it's all a ploy to get him released from his contract, so he can take the position as the Knicks' coach, which was his dream job all along. Not saying he completely made up his health problems, but look at where he is now. Coincidence? I think not.
Anyways, what is my point in all this? That we should all run and believe whatever rumors we hear on Access Hollywood or read in US Weekly? Of course not. As much as we as a society need to be grateful to the industry that brought us such brilliant nicknames as "TomKat" or "Brangelina", I don't think it's the greatest idea to take these people's word as gospel.
After all, most of us probably remember the day Princess Di was killed in a car accident as her driver was trying to outrun paparazzi. Don't be fooled by the pretty faces of Maria Menuous or the tower of manhood that is Pat O'Brien. These aren't the most respectable people who are bringing you all those photos and dishy details.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't believe the "celebrities" themselves either (and certainly not their "publicists" of all people). Someone denying a story has almost as little credibility as someone floating a rumor, at least it seems to be the case with these things.
So yeah, don't believe anyone, and you're good.
*****
Eric Gordon Verbals to Illinois
By the way, I can't mention the subject of college recruiting in a blog, without including a note of excitement for the newest future star of Illinois basketball, Mr. Eric Gordon!
As many Illini bball fans know, there hasn't been a whole lot to be happy about as far as recruiting goes in the past few years. In fact there's been a lot of downright terrible moments I could name. Just a few days ago I was reading a feature on Jon Scheyer in my ESPN the Magazine that made me want to puke. Among the highlights, "[Coach K] really gets me. I feel like he has my whole life planned for me", and him talking about facing racism on the court for being white. Poor, poor Jon.
Honestly, I didn't think I would ever see us win a recruit over Duke, and that just makes this news all the more notable. Hopefully this will be a watershed of more to come, but that remains to be seen.
Of course, as I've said before, recruiting and high rankings aren't everything. It's definitely nice to get guys who stay 3 and 4 years to watch them develop, instead of players who play one year and then declare for the NBA. But from everything I've heard about this kid, it sounds like he's going to be a great player, with a great background and attitude. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing him in that orange jersey in 2007 and beyond. Assuming nothing big happens before then, of course. After all, we did witness the Bill Self/Villenueva debacle only a few years back. But I'll not ruin this fine moment with talk of those things right now.
Yesterday I heard the news that Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey officially separated. Can't say that I'm all that surprised, based on what we all saw in their 2 seasons of Newlyweds on MTV.
What's interesting to me is that it seemed like the tabloids have been reporting that for months, if not more than a year, about their separation. All along, both sides fiercely denied the stories, from what I can remember. But in the end it looks like they turned out to be 100% right.
I honestly don't follow the "celebrity" gossip as much as some people, so I can't write that much in depth on the subject. But as a general observation, I'm starting to wonder if maybe these entertainment shows and magazines actually do know a lot more than we give them credit for.
Like with the whole Jennifer Aniston/Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie love triangle, it started with just rumors that Brad and Angelina had a thing developing on the side. Like Nick and Jessica, they all blew off the stories at the time. But next thing you know, Brad and Jennifer break up. And since then, what do you know, a relationship between Brad and Angelina seems to be revealing itself more as time passes.
Of course, there's the times when it's pretty obvious that the stories are being manufactured or blown out of proportion to attract more attention. When you take a picture of Matt Damon kissing some actress as they're shooting a movie together, and use it to suggest that those two are hooking up, that tends to not be so credible. Or if you run a headline in huge font that asks a question like "Is J-Lo marrying her 90 year old gardener?" and then force readers to turn to page 28 to find out the answer is "No", you can't realistically expect me to fall for that trick more than 8 or 9 times before I get wiser.
I'm just wondering if maybe there's really something to these "experts" and their analysis, like how they read between the lines and break down quotes of what the celebrities say in interviews to figure out what they're really thinking.
Or there's also the more obvious stuff such as a couple not showing up to an event together, not wearing their wedding rings, etc. Although with those kinds of things, I suspect it could all just be games their publicists play to work the media. You gotta think that when the celebrities say or do certain things in public, they must know that it's going to be studied under a microscope by people who do it for a living, so they better be extra careful. Some of the "clues" they drop might be subconscious, but it's hard to tell sometimes.
Then again, maybe these gossip shows are just throwing random crap out there to see what sticks, and when stuff actually comes true, they take credit for it for breaking the news first. When it doesn't, it's easily forgotten.
Maybe I just lack understanding of the industry, like there is some sort of hierarchy of gossip magazines with varying levels of credibility Like I get the sense that US Weekly is one of the most "respected" sources, while other magazines on the same rack may not be as believable.
Now that I think about it, the same stuff happens in the sports world too, except not in the "who's dating who" kind of story. More like who's getting traded, who's getting fired, who wants to move from one team to the next. I've lost count of the number of times a rumor comes out that some coach is about to get canned, followed by the team publicly denying it and giving him a "vote of confidence", then a few days or weeks later they give him the ax anyways.
Or if any of you follow college recruiting, the rumors that fly on the internet seem to come true more often than you would expect, all coming from nameless "sources". One kid will name School #1 as his leader, then all of a sudden another school's name will pop up, followed by his parents and coaches saying "no, the School #1 is still his leader, we still like them the best", but in the end everyone is surprised when he dumps School #1 for School #2.
The whole Larry Brown "saga" of last year might be the best example. All of a sudden he decides to take time off from the Pistons because of health reasons. Meanwhile everyone is speculating that he is unhappy in Detroit, and it's all a ploy to get him released from his contract, so he can take the position as the Knicks' coach, which was his dream job all along. Not saying he completely made up his health problems, but look at where he is now. Coincidence? I think not.
Anyways, what is my point in all this? That we should all run and believe whatever rumors we hear on Access Hollywood or read in US Weekly? Of course not. As much as we as a society need to be grateful to the industry that brought us such brilliant nicknames as "TomKat" or "Brangelina", I don't think it's the greatest idea to take these people's word as gospel.
After all, most of us probably remember the day Princess Di was killed in a car accident as her driver was trying to outrun paparazzi. Don't be fooled by the pretty faces of Maria Menuous or the tower of manhood that is Pat O'Brien. These aren't the most respectable people who are bringing you all those photos and dishy details.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't believe the "celebrities" themselves either (and certainly not their "publicists" of all people). Someone denying a story has almost as little credibility as someone floating a rumor, at least it seems to be the case with these things.
So yeah, don't believe anyone, and you're good.
*****
Eric Gordon Verbals to Illinois
By the way, I can't mention the subject of college recruiting in a blog, without including a note of excitement for the newest future star of Illinois basketball, Mr. Eric Gordon!
As many Illini bball fans know, there hasn't been a whole lot to be happy about as far as recruiting goes in the past few years. In fact there's been a lot of downright terrible moments I could name. Just a few days ago I was reading a feature on Jon Scheyer in my ESPN the Magazine that made me want to puke. Among the highlights, "[Coach K] really gets me. I feel like he has my whole life planned for me", and him talking about facing racism on the court for being white. Poor, poor Jon.
Honestly, I didn't think I would ever see us win a recruit over Duke, and that just makes this news all the more notable. Hopefully this will be a watershed of more to come, but that remains to be seen.
Of course, as I've said before, recruiting and high rankings aren't everything. It's definitely nice to get guys who stay 3 and 4 years to watch them develop, instead of players who play one year and then declare for the NBA. But from everything I've heard about this kid, it sounds like he's going to be a great player, with a great background and attitude. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing him in that orange jersey in 2007 and beyond. Assuming nothing big happens before then, of course. After all, we did witness the Bill Self/Villenueva debacle only a few years back. But I'll not ruin this fine moment with talk of those things right now.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
True Life: I'm Not A Professional Gamer
MTV has been running one of their True:Life "documentaries" recently that covers people who are so good at video games that they started to play for a living. I don't know if any of you have seen it yet, but I thought it was a pretty interesting show and recommend that you keep an eye out for it.
If nothing else, the segments featuring the girls who play in Counterstrike tournaments is very lovely. Made me feel like I was a high school boy again, when I always had crushes on pretty girls who were out of my league. Okay, so I never really did that in high school, so I guess it basically made me feel like a 25 year old loser who falls in love with girls on TV who happen to be awesome at video games.
In all seriousness, though, I have to say I was impressed with how much "work" these kids put towards video games. The one girl was saying how "at LEAST 11 hours of practice per day is a must", while the SMASH Bros. guy stayed up till 6am playing the game like it was nothing. I mean in college we had our share of video game marathons, but I don't think it even begins to compare to these psychos.
And their payouts actually weren't bad either. At first when the SMASH Bros. guy was saying how he made $100 for a day of playing, I was like, "haha, $100, big deal". But then I thought about it more and realized that hey, I don't make that much more than $100 a day myself, after taxes. And they're playing video games while I gotta actually engineer stuff. Not to mention he was probably going to make more after signing with a managing company and playing in bigger tournaments.
I think it just goes to show you that you can do pretty much anything for a living, if you work hard enough and can get good enough to be one of the best at what you do. Obviously some professions are going to be more profitable than others, especially if you consider the long term prospects. I can't imagine anyone could stay on top of their game for more than a few years, and after that, how helpful are your video gaming skills going to be to finding another profession?
But there's still something to be said for doing what you love and making enough money to support yourself by doing it. Ideally it would be something that helps society, but that's another discussion. I do admire these kids (even the T-Squared guy, who's pretty much a tool outside of his Halo skills), for the fact that they found something they know they excel at. And since they know 100% that it's what they want to do, they can wholeheartedly devote all of their time and energy to it and become even better.
I compare that to my job and it's not like that at all. I go to work, usually 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and get paid fairly reasonably for it. But that's it.
I don't find myself waking up early or staying up late to become a better engineer. Not because I don't have ambition and not because I don't have the work ethic for it. I don't see anything wrong with working way more than 40 hours a week, and in fact I believe you need to do that to be truly successful at anything.
The only problem is that unlike these "professional gamers", I can't say wholeheartedly that what I'm doing now, is what I was meant to do. What I was born to do. Maybe one day in the future that will change, but right now my job is just my job.
To those kids their job and their passion is one and the same. If I could feel about my job, the way they feel about theirs, there's no question in my mind that I would work as hard and as long as they do, and maybe even more so. But as it stands, being an engineer means not much more than something I spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week on, and in return allows me to pay all of the bills.
Anyways, I didn't mean to turn this entry on a MTV show about teenagers who play video games for money, into another long discussion about myself which nobody else really cares. But yeah, if you all haven't seen this show, I recommend it because I thought it was pretty interesting and entertaining. Or you can just watch it for the pretty girls.
(Watch out for the girls team from China, though. They should have had a disclaimer: The following scene contains extremely unattractive FOBs. Viewer discretion is advised.)
*****
Oh, and on a side note, 60 Minutes did a segment this past Sunday about online poker and how it is a thriving industry despite being illegal in the United States. This was definitely not as interesting or well done as the MTV show discussed above. Kinda sad that I'd consider a MTV True Life show to be more worthwhile to watch than 60 Minutes, but that's my honest opinion and I'm sticking by it.
(Not saying all of the MTV True Life shows are good, but at least the "Professional Gamer" one was.)
MTV has been running one of their True:Life "documentaries" recently that covers people who are so good at video games that they started to play for a living. I don't know if any of you have seen it yet, but I thought it was a pretty interesting show and recommend that you keep an eye out for it.
If nothing else, the segments featuring the girls who play in Counterstrike tournaments is very lovely. Made me feel like I was a high school boy again, when I always had crushes on pretty girls who were out of my league. Okay, so I never really did that in high school, so I guess it basically made me feel like a 25 year old loser who falls in love with girls on TV who happen to be awesome at video games.
In all seriousness, though, I have to say I was impressed with how much "work" these kids put towards video games. The one girl was saying how "at LEAST 11 hours of practice per day is a must", while the SMASH Bros. guy stayed up till 6am playing the game like it was nothing. I mean in college we had our share of video game marathons, but I don't think it even begins to compare to these psychos.
And their payouts actually weren't bad either. At first when the SMASH Bros. guy was saying how he made $100 for a day of playing, I was like, "haha, $100, big deal". But then I thought about it more and realized that hey, I don't make that much more than $100 a day myself, after taxes. And they're playing video games while I gotta actually engineer stuff. Not to mention he was probably going to make more after signing with a managing company and playing in bigger tournaments.
I think it just goes to show you that you can do pretty much anything for a living, if you work hard enough and can get good enough to be one of the best at what you do. Obviously some professions are going to be more profitable than others, especially if you consider the long term prospects. I can't imagine anyone could stay on top of their game for more than a few years, and after that, how helpful are your video gaming skills going to be to finding another profession?
But there's still something to be said for doing what you love and making enough money to support yourself by doing it. Ideally it would be something that helps society, but that's another discussion. I do admire these kids (even the T-Squared guy, who's pretty much a tool outside of his Halo skills), for the fact that they found something they know they excel at. And since they know 100% that it's what they want to do, they can wholeheartedly devote all of their time and energy to it and become even better.
I compare that to my job and it's not like that at all. I go to work, usually 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and get paid fairly reasonably for it. But that's it.
I don't find myself waking up early or staying up late to become a better engineer. Not because I don't have ambition and not because I don't have the work ethic for it. I don't see anything wrong with working way more than 40 hours a week, and in fact I believe you need to do that to be truly successful at anything.
The only problem is that unlike these "professional gamers", I can't say wholeheartedly that what I'm doing now, is what I was meant to do. What I was born to do. Maybe one day in the future that will change, but right now my job is just my job.
To those kids their job and their passion is one and the same. If I could feel about my job, the way they feel about theirs, there's no question in my mind that I would work as hard and as long as they do, and maybe even more so. But as it stands, being an engineer means not much more than something I spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week on, and in return allows me to pay all of the bills.
Anyways, I didn't mean to turn this entry on a MTV show about teenagers who play video games for money, into another long discussion about myself which nobody else really cares. But yeah, if you all haven't seen this show, I recommend it because I thought it was pretty interesting and entertaining. Or you can just watch it for the pretty girls.
(Watch out for the girls team from China, though. They should have had a disclaimer: The following scene contains extremely unattractive FOBs. Viewer discretion is advised.)
*****
Oh, and on a side note, 60 Minutes did a segment this past Sunday about online poker and how it is a thriving industry despite being illegal in the United States. This was definitely not as interesting or well done as the MTV show discussed above. Kinda sad that I'd consider a MTV True Life show to be more worthwhile to watch than 60 Minutes, but that's my honest opinion and I'm sticking by it.
(Not saying all of the MTV True Life shows are good, but at least the "Professional Gamer" one was.)
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
ESPN the Universe
On a typical day, my clock radio alarm goes off in the morning to Mike and Mike on AM 1000. Once I'm awake enough to reach for the TV remote, I turn on the TV which is usually set to ESPN or ESPN 2 (from the night before). As I'm getting ready for work, I boot up my computer and open a web browser whose home page is set at ESPN.com.
As I head to work, it's more Mike and Mike on the car radio. Throughout the day, I'm periodically checking ESPN.com for updated news stories and articles. Lunch time is especially a time I like to read the latest Sports Guy article and/or blog at my desk. Or if I go out for lunch, I usually end up listening to Dan Patrick on the car ride there.
After work, it's more ESPN. If it's not Baseball Tonight, Sportscenter, NFL Live, or a good game on ESPN, it's World Series of Poker coverage, the Hot Dog eating contest, or Stump the Schwab on ESPN 2. Even ESPN Classic gets some play once in a while. Sprinkle in more browsing of ESPN.com on my computer. Even when I'm in the bathroom, none other than ESPN the Magazine serves as reading material.
That can't be healthy, right? I mean, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I'm going through ESPN overload right now.
What bothers me is that I don't even think ESPN is that great anymore, yet I still find myself watching, listening, browsing, and read as if it were a religion.
I can't stand half the personalities on TV, first of all. Woody Paige and Skip Bayless on Cold Pizza are a downright joke. Sean Salisbury is a loudmouthed know-it-all, and why should we take him seriously to begin with, considering he was never anything more than a mediocre backup QB? Don't even wanna talk about Steven A. Smith, quite frankly. Mike Greenberg on Mike and Mike really annoys me for some reason, and Dan Patrick's show is borderline unlistenable at times, how he constantly beats dead subjects into the ground. It actually makes me miss Jim Rome, to be honest.
The more general trends I'm seeing with ESPN are disturbing too. I think I've written before about how there's too many shows like PTI and Around the Horn, where all they do is argue for the sake of arguing. Seriously, I get the feeling that none of these "experts" actually have a real opinion, they're all just trying to create a spectacle to get attention.
Not only that, but it seems like they rarely talk about the actual sports anymore. It always seems to be off the field stuff. Steroids, player salaries, legal problems, personal feuds, the list goes on. Whatever happened to discussing X's and O's on the basketball court? Breaking down defensive coverage schemes or offensive formations on the football field? Analyzing a batter's or pitcher's weaknesses in the baseball diamond?
I know it's because that stuff doesn't attract as much ratings, but I guess that just means that I'm in the minority as far as the way I feel. From what I remember, ESPN wasn't always like this. I used to think Sportscenter was such a fresh show, and looked forward to watching every night because all of the anchors seemed genuine and likeable. The show was lighthearted and simple, and to me, that's what a sports network should be like, because that is the nature of sports.
Sure, there are many things about the sports world that transcend into the "real" world, and it's not wrong to observe that now and then. But in the end, we're still talking about a game. And the great thing about sports as a game is that it provides a temporary escape and release from life's more serious side.
My point is, there are already plenty of news media outlets that are supposed to discuss politics, economics, legal issues, that kind of stuff. Can't we have just one channel that just talks about pure unadulterated sports?
I picture some high-powered executive just walked into ESPN's corporate offices one day and said to everybody in the boardroom:
"We need to squeeze out as much profit as we can from this company. Having two TV channels isn't enough. We need ESPN Deportes, ESPN Classic, ESPN U, and the Ocho. And now that we have all these channels, we obviously will need to come up with more shows to fill up our programming schedule. Let's give Steven A. Smith his own talk show. Let's make a whole bunch of reality shows and game shows like MTV does. Don't forget to explore all adjacent markets with shows such as ESPN Hollywood.
Besides TV, make sure to expand into radio, magazines, even restaurants. Our website definitely needs to maximize its profitability as well. Let's make people pay for the same articles they used to read for free, and call it 'Insider'. Also, Page 2 isn't enough of a divergence from sports, so create Page 3. Finally, use the most intrusive ads possible because they pay the most, even if it does piss off a lot of people."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything ESPN has added in the past few years is bad. I mean I liked "Teammates" and "Stump the Schwab", and as I said before, every once in a while there's a game on ESPN Classic that's definitely worth watching.
But overall, I think it's simply become too much. Like when I walked into ESPN Zone a few weeks ago and found myself surrounded by mugs, t-shirts, jerseys, just about everything emblazoned with the ESPN logo and overpriced to boot. Or when I flip on the TV and see AC Slater hosting a show that really belongs on the E! Network. And when they actually have made up "cartoons" on ESPN.com (I'm not talking about the Sports Guy cartoon or Off-Mike either, there's one that's actually completely fictional), it's clearly going too far.
Which brings me back to my question of why I continue to let ESPN dominate my life, despite the fact that I don't even like it that much anymore. Maybe it's because the alternatives suck more. Like Mike and Mike might not be the greatest morning radio show out there, but at least it doesn't make me want to pour acid in my own ears, which is the urge I get everytime I happen to listen to Drex in the Morning for more than a couple minutes.
Anyways, if there's anything I learned from the whole Terrell Owens saga of last week, it's that ESPN has taken too big a chunk of my daily life. In other words, when I find myself reading reports about how much of a tip TO left for a pizza delivery guy, it's probably a sign that I need to make some changes.
On a typical day, my clock radio alarm goes off in the morning to Mike and Mike on AM 1000. Once I'm awake enough to reach for the TV remote, I turn on the TV which is usually set to ESPN or ESPN 2 (from the night before). As I'm getting ready for work, I boot up my computer and open a web browser whose home page is set at ESPN.com.
As I head to work, it's more Mike and Mike on the car radio. Throughout the day, I'm periodically checking ESPN.com for updated news stories and articles. Lunch time is especially a time I like to read the latest Sports Guy article and/or blog at my desk. Or if I go out for lunch, I usually end up listening to Dan Patrick on the car ride there.
After work, it's more ESPN. If it's not Baseball Tonight, Sportscenter, NFL Live, or a good game on ESPN, it's World Series of Poker coverage, the Hot Dog eating contest, or Stump the Schwab on ESPN 2. Even ESPN Classic gets some play once in a while. Sprinkle in more browsing of ESPN.com on my computer. Even when I'm in the bathroom, none other than ESPN the Magazine serves as reading material.
That can't be healthy, right? I mean, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think I'm going through ESPN overload right now.
What bothers me is that I don't even think ESPN is that great anymore, yet I still find myself watching, listening, browsing, and read as if it were a religion.
I can't stand half the personalities on TV, first of all. Woody Paige and Skip Bayless on Cold Pizza are a downright joke. Sean Salisbury is a loudmouthed know-it-all, and why should we take him seriously to begin with, considering he was never anything more than a mediocre backup QB? Don't even wanna talk about Steven A. Smith, quite frankly. Mike Greenberg on Mike and Mike really annoys me for some reason, and Dan Patrick's show is borderline unlistenable at times, how he constantly beats dead subjects into the ground. It actually makes me miss Jim Rome, to be honest.
The more general trends I'm seeing with ESPN are disturbing too. I think I've written before about how there's too many shows like PTI and Around the Horn, where all they do is argue for the sake of arguing. Seriously, I get the feeling that none of these "experts" actually have a real opinion, they're all just trying to create a spectacle to get attention.
Not only that, but it seems like they rarely talk about the actual sports anymore. It always seems to be off the field stuff. Steroids, player salaries, legal problems, personal feuds, the list goes on. Whatever happened to discussing X's and O's on the basketball court? Breaking down defensive coverage schemes or offensive formations on the football field? Analyzing a batter's or pitcher's weaknesses in the baseball diamond?
I know it's because that stuff doesn't attract as much ratings, but I guess that just means that I'm in the minority as far as the way I feel. From what I remember, ESPN wasn't always like this. I used to think Sportscenter was such a fresh show, and looked forward to watching every night because all of the anchors seemed genuine and likeable. The show was lighthearted and simple, and to me, that's what a sports network should be like, because that is the nature of sports.
Sure, there are many things about the sports world that transcend into the "real" world, and it's not wrong to observe that now and then. But in the end, we're still talking about a game. And the great thing about sports as a game is that it provides a temporary escape and release from life's more serious side.
My point is, there are already plenty of news media outlets that are supposed to discuss politics, economics, legal issues, that kind of stuff. Can't we have just one channel that just talks about pure unadulterated sports?
I picture some high-powered executive just walked into ESPN's corporate offices one day and said to everybody in the boardroom:
"We need to squeeze out as much profit as we can from this company. Having two TV channels isn't enough. We need ESPN Deportes, ESPN Classic, ESPN U, and the Ocho. And now that we have all these channels, we obviously will need to come up with more shows to fill up our programming schedule. Let's give Steven A. Smith his own talk show. Let's make a whole bunch of reality shows and game shows like MTV does. Don't forget to explore all adjacent markets with shows such as ESPN Hollywood.
Besides TV, make sure to expand into radio, magazines, even restaurants. Our website definitely needs to maximize its profitability as well. Let's make people pay for the same articles they used to read for free, and call it 'Insider'. Also, Page 2 isn't enough of a divergence from sports, so create Page 3. Finally, use the most intrusive ads possible because they pay the most, even if it does piss off a lot of people."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything ESPN has added in the past few years is bad. I mean I liked "Teammates" and "Stump the Schwab", and as I said before, every once in a while there's a game on ESPN Classic that's definitely worth watching.
But overall, I think it's simply become too much. Like when I walked into ESPN Zone a few weeks ago and found myself surrounded by mugs, t-shirts, jerseys, just about everything emblazoned with the ESPN logo and overpriced to boot. Or when I flip on the TV and see AC Slater hosting a show that really belongs on the E! Network. And when they actually have made up "cartoons" on ESPN.com (I'm not talking about the Sports Guy cartoon or Off-Mike either, there's one that's actually completely fictional), it's clearly going too far.
Which brings me back to my question of why I continue to let ESPN dominate my life, despite the fact that I don't even like it that much anymore. Maybe it's because the alternatives suck more. Like Mike and Mike might not be the greatest morning radio show out there, but at least it doesn't make me want to pour acid in my own ears, which is the urge I get everytime I happen to listen to Drex in the Morning for more than a couple minutes.
Anyways, if there's anything I learned from the whole Terrell Owens saga of last week, it's that ESPN has taken too big a chunk of my daily life. In other words, when I find myself reading reports about how much of a tip TO left for a pizza delivery guy, it's probably a sign that I need to make some changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)