More video to pass your time. I remember this ad, but the absurdity of the percentage never struck me when I was 5. Why not 99 11/25-percent pure?
Since we’re on the topic of Lionel Richie, you should probably see the video for “Hello”
Turns out the video for “Hello” is incredibly, ahh, Lionel Richieish. Hat tip to my man Ripps for tipping me off. Sorry, this is a busy day:
Since I asked
A couple of weeks ago I wondered what becomes of retired space shuttles. Turns out they’re a pretty desirable item for aerospace museums. I still think low-riders would be cool though.
Daily News gossip poll consistently hilarious
You know, I promised myself I was going to cut back on the straight-up newspaper trolling. But I’m really busy today and the Daily News gossip poll is like an alley-oop pass. They’re usually embedded in the related articles online, but they run the results in isolation in the Gatecrasher section in the print edition. And the questions will be stuff that really shouldn’t be left up for polls, like, “Should (Celebrity A) and (Celebrity B) have gotten a divorce?”
Anyway, today’s is true to form. Apparently someone named Joel Madden, who is married to Lionel Richie’s daughter Nicole, Tweeted that his wife spends too much money on pillows. Now the Daily News wants to know if he was overreacting, if he’s completely right, or if he should be keeping their private affairs off Twitter.
Turns out 64% of Daily News readers believe no one should be spending $3,000 on pillows. But I don’t care about Daily News readers (besides myself, of course). I care about you! So I’ve put the same poll here — with a few more choices — to see what TedQuarters Nation thinks about Joel Madden’s decision to Tweet about Nicole Richie’s decision to spend $3,000 on pillows.
[poll id=”18″]
That last one is a shout-out to some SNY.tv editors. For a very long time, whenever we ran a homepage poll involving the Knicks, that was the last answer. It usually won.
New York Post Fear Index
Turns out I missed a lot in the papers while I was in Port St. Lucie. And if you read the New York Post, you must think this is a pretty terrifying time to be a Mets fan. Let’s look at some of the things the Post would have us fear and rate them by how scary they actually are, on a scale of 1-10.
I should note that there’s plenty to fear in all the other papers and on just about every blog, too. I was going to do a general Mets Fear Index, but I started out at the Post’s Mets page and realized it had all the material I needed. So here’s what we’re afraid of:
Carlos Beltran’s knee problems: There’s a lot about this on the Post, and rightfully so. Beltran’s arthritic knees, we know, have hampered his last two seasons and slowed his preparation for this one. This is something legitimately worth fearing. The only mitigating factor is that, in Scott Hairston, Lucas Duda and Nick Evans, the Mets have a reasonable amount of depth at the position, something new for the organization. Fear factor: 9 out of 10.
Oliver Perez is still here: I’ve said this before: Barring a rash of injuries, Oliver Perez is not going to make the Mets. Every word spilled on the subject — on this site included — is a word wasted. I will not mention Oliver Perez again until either he is officially cut or it is March 31 and he is still on the roster. Fear factor: 1 out of 10.
Jose Reyes is the new Carmelo Anthony: Get this: Because Jose Reyes is not as good as Rickey Henderson, the greatest leadoff hitter of all time, then there’s no chance Sandy Alderson will want Jose Reyes back. The fact that Reyes plays shortstop only gets a single parenthetical mention in this column. I’ll amount there’s a solid chance Reyes won’t be back next year, but, without quoting nebulous “executives,” I’d put it at way less than 95 percent. Fear factor: 4 out of 10.
OH MY GOD WE’RE HAVING A FIRE… sale: I will never hear the term “fire sale” again without thinking of Tobias Funke. Evacuate all of the schoolchildren! That said, I don’t know a lot about business and I don’t have a ton of inside information or anything about the Wilpons’ pending lawsuit and their finances. I’m not eager to get too deep into this, lest I sound like a shill. But everything I understand suggests that most of the media coverage — and basically all the sports-media coverage — entirely fails to grasp any of the nuance involved. Here, the thesis — citing more “executives” — is: We know the Mets have money problems, so we should expect them to cut salary down to the $70 million small-market team range. Seems like the brushstrokes are too broad. Also, my understanding is the whole point of seeking another part-owner is so the Mets’ finances are not impacted by the Wilpons’ troubles. Fear factor: 3 out of 10.
Chris Capuano discusses his Segway
If you only read one interview for the rest of your life, read Patrick Flood’s chat with Chris Capuano about Segways.
From the Wikipedia: The Great Auk
Originally posted March 18, 2010.
I like nature as much as the next guy, but I’m not generally one to get all broken up about extinct animals because, you know, survival of the fittest and all. But I do always wonder what those extinct animals would have tasted like.
The subject of today’s From the Wikipedia was almost certainly delicious. In fact, it was partly our ancestors’ ravenous consumption of the species that led to its demise, because our forefathers lacked the foresight to leave even a few of them behind for us to breed and subsequently barbecue.
From the Wikipedia: The Great Auk.
The Great Auk was a species of flightless bird that lived on islands off eastern Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Ireland, and Great Britain up until the 19th century. It stood about 30-33 inches high and vaguely resembled a penguin. Under its down, it had a thick layer of fat, which served the dual purpose of protecting it from the cold Northern air and preventing its meat from drying up when cooked over an open fire.
Besides its deliciousness, the Great Auk’s most notable characteristic, by far, was its naivete. For some stupid reason, it was not afraid of humans, even though it clearly should have been.
In fact, on a 1622 expedition to Funk Island — which is not nearly as awesome a place as it sounds — a British crew was able to drive the succulent poultry right up the gangplanks and onto their boat. Sir Richard Whitbourne described it, “as if God had made the innocency of so poore a creature to become such an admirable instrument for the sustenation of man.”
But man, being man, was obviously not an admirable instrument for the sustenation of so poore a creature.
Hint to animals: Fear humans or figure out how to make humans fear you. Otherwise, you’ll endure species-wide humiliations like the ones that eventually spelled the demise of the Great Auk.
As long ago as 2000 B.C., someone was buried in Newfoundland wearing a coat made of 200 Great Auk skins with the heads left on for decoration. The Great Auk jacket was the O.G. mink coat.
The Beothuk people of Newfoundland made pudding out of Great Auk eggs. (It should be noted, here, that the last surviving Beothuk died about 15 years before the last Great Auk, so the Great Auk had the last laugh in that storied rivalry.)
But more than anything, it is the treatment of the last few Great Auks that underscores humanity’s lack thereof.
By the turn of the 19th century, after centuries of being hunted for its meat, eggs and down feathers, the Great Auk was nearly extinct, and in 1794 it became illegal to kill Great Auks in England.
That didn’t stop the 75-year-old Scotsman who caught the last Great Auk ever seen in the British Isles, though. He tied the bird up for three days then beat it to death with a stick. Why? Because he thought it was a witch, obviously.
The last remaining colony of about 50 Great Auks lived on an island inaccessible to humans until 1830, when the island submerged and they were forced to move to another island that was barely accessible to humans.
Just accessible enough, it turned out, for preservationists — I kid you not — to kill the remaining birds for displaying their skins and eggs in museums.
In July, 1844, the last pair of Great Auks sat incubating an egg, still somehow not fearing humans even though humans had killed all the other Great Auks. Three humans approached and the two Great Auks just sat there on the egg, so two of the humans strangled the Great Auks while the third smashed their egg with his boot.
That was all for the Great Auk.
Tale of the Tape: R.A. Dickey vs. my freshman-year R.A.
Originally posted Aug. 20, 2010.
I know you’ve been wondering how they stack up, so here it is: A tale of the tape measuring Robert Alan Dickey against Jacques, the friendly resident advisor on the fourth floor of the New South Dormitory at Georgetown University in the 1999-2000 academic year.
| R.A. Dickey | Jacques the R.A. | |
|---|---|---|
| Headwear | Mets cap | Bucket hat |
| Enjoys reading | Yes | Yes |
| Beard | Yes | Varying |
| Weapon of choice | Knuckleball | Student-conduct citations |
| Widely appreciated facial gesture | Makes hilarious face while throwing | Looks the other way while you’ve got a backpack that’s obviously filled with beer |
| Dislikes | Being pulled from a game early due to injury | Hall sports |
| Willingness to let you play Bond on his N64 | Unknown | Frequent |
| Skills | Controlling knuckleballs at multiple speeds, fielding position, flummoxing opposing hitters | Playing various musical instruments, pulling off tie-dye, maintaining an interesting tumblr |
| Fun fact
|
Has no ulnar collateral ligament | Introduced me to coffee milk |
Chester A. Arthur: Mutton-chops hero
Originally posted Feb. 11, 2010.
As far as I’m concerned, this nation’s Golden Age came from 1861-1913.
Now I recognize that the Civil War and plenty of other terrible, horrible things happened in that span, but I also know that, across those years, nine of the 11 presidents had facial hair. Never before and never since has this great country seen such an explosion of glorious whiskers.
And though he may not have been the greatest Presidentially of the mustachioed and bearded Presidents, one man stands head and shoulders — nay, neckbeard and sideburns — above the rest in terms of facial-hair magnificence: Chester A. Arthur.
I’m convinced that Chester A. Arthur was born with his muttonchops. Seriously. Probably this has something to do with how few likenesses there are available online of Chester A. Arthur as a boy, but even the youngest available portraits of the man feature the impressive chops.
At times in life, and indeed, during his presidency, they would grow so wild as to constitute truly freakish facial hair, like something you’d see at a Korn concert in 1998. The dude had shoulder-length mutton chops. Unreal.
Another fun fact about Chester A. Arthur — which is decidedly not a fun fact for James Garfield — is that Garfield’s assassin shot him specifically so that Arthur, his vice president, could take over. That’s the only time that’s happened. The Wikipedia says this has something to do with rival factions within the Republican party at the time, but I’m unwilling to rule out the idea that assassin Charles Guiteau was just showing some horribly misguided and overzealous respect for Arthur’s awesome muttonchops.
Anyway, here are various likenesses depicting Chester A. Arthur’s muttonchops:




I actually just spent my last 10 minutes making a terrible photoshop rendering of what it might look like if Barack Obama brought back awesome Chester A. Arthur muttonchops, but then I grew concerned that there might be some sort of law in place about drawing facial hair on pictures of sitting Presidents or something. But he should do it, believe me. It’d make politics so much more interesting.
Art Attack: Shaq’s Size Does Matter exhibit
Originally posted Feb. 20, 2010.
“Now this is a table for Shaq,” said a girl with day-glo orange hair and tattered leggings to a man in a black jacket with all sorts of extraneous zippers.
They stood under Robert Therrien’s No Title (Table and Six Chairs) and gawked at the massiveness of the work. The piece is not hard to describe: It is a plain-looking table and six chairs, just tremendous. The seat of each chair stood nearly five feet high, the back stretching to just shy of 10 feet, almost scraping the ceiling. The table — like the chairs, made of aluminum painted to look like dark wood — stood almost as tall, at about nine feet. And, at 12 feet wide and 18 1/2 feet long, its awesome dimensions tested the confines of what should have been a large gallery space at the FLAG Art Foundation in Chelsea.
Size Does Matter, the first art exhibition curated by Shaquille O’Neal, opened Friday night to a large crowd that appeared to be some mix of New York aesthetes, curious hipsters and intrigued basketball fans. It was difficult to tell — in Manhattan, one person could easily be all three — and there was no dominant draw among the few people I asked. Some came because it was Shaq’s art show, for sure. Others came to see the works on display from high-profile artists like Jeff Koons and Ron Mueck. One noted “all the buzz” around the show.
Hype breeds hype and crowds attract crowds. Shaq curated an art exhibit and landed some big-name works, and a bunch of people showed up. No surprises there, I guess.
Though Shaq himself is colossal, the exhibition was more than just impressively huge things. There were tiny things too — like Willard Wigan’s (literally) microscopic sculptures of the Obama family and Shaq inside the eyes of needles, and Jim Torok’s Self Portrait with Yellow Sunglasses.
More than anything, though, the show was about jarring proportions. Richard Dupont’s Untitled (Terminal Stage), which cannot really be adequately represented by a photograph, featured three sculptures, modeled after the artist, in cast polyurethane resin, set up a few feet apart from one another in a triangle.
Though from some angles, the sculptures might look identical — and in realistic human scale — each was skewed in some unique way so that, from a certain perspective, it looked like it was being viewed through a funhouse mirror or, as one onlooker said, “through someone else’s glasses.”
It was fascinating to behold, and to feel my eyes try to adjust and process information that clearly did not connect with my brain’s long-conditioned notion of what humans and sculptures of humans should be shaped like.
And it was even more fascinating, of course, to watch other people go through the same process.
Evan Penny’s amazing Stretch #2, while not as dizzying, inspired a similar reaction. A nine-foot tall silicon sculpture of a stretched head, the work impressed crowds and baffled amateur photographers.
There are traces of Shaq’s persona throughout the exhibit, beyond just the life-size portrait of a smiling Shaq by Peter Max that graces the gallery’s reading room.
A photograph from Paul Pfeiffer’s basketball series, Four Horseman of the Apocalypse, is on display, as is a reminder of one of Shaq’s previous forays off the basketball court: his hip-hop career. Kehinde Wiley’s portrait, Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five, hangs directly across from Max’s piece.
Still, even with two floors packed with cool pieces to look at, I kept going back to Therrien’s table.
It’s tough to say, with a work like that, who should get credit for the way it’s displayed, and whether it’s even reasonable to assess a piece based partly on the room that contains it. The Internet shows me that the same work has previously been shown in much bigger rooms, and even outdoors.
But someone — presumably Shaq himself — chose to show Therrien’s piece in a Manhattan space probably not really suitable for works of its scale. And someone set it up in that particular room at the FLAG Art Foundation, alone, filling every last bit of it, each chair sitting mere inches from the wall. At some step along the line, someone — or some collection of someones — made conscious choices to cram that table and those chairs in that space, and so I think it’s reasonable to assess its effect as displayed, even if its not necessarily the original one Therrien intended.
Because that table moved me in a way I did not honestly expect to be moved by Shaq’s art exhibition. Looking up at the tremendous table jammed into the room, and seeing all the people coming in and staring and laughing and taking pictures with it, it made me feel Shaq somehow, for a fleeting second, and it was so damn sad that I had to brace myself against the wall.
How uncomfortable must it be, sometimes, to be that big? How claustrophobic? Our world is not built for 7’1″, 350 pound men, just as that room was not built for an 18 1/2 foot-long table. What desk did Shaq sit at in middle school?
The Shaq we know, his public persona, is playful, and the work is a playful piece, too — make no mistake. It’s a giant dinner table, after all. It’s fun. But something about all the people enjoying it, reveling in its gentle giantism, made me wonder if Shaq ever wants to hide. You can’t hope to blend in when you’re 7’1″ and 350 pounds. Maybe on the court in the NBA, but never once the game is over.
And when I thought about it that way, it made perfect sense that Shaq’s art exhibition would not be a mere celebration of big things, but a more complex exploration of scale and perception. Shaq’s sheer size is a big part — maybe the biggest part, no pun intended — of what made him a great basketball player and of what makes him so entertaining a character. But I would venture to guess it has also complicated his life in ways I cannot entirely comprehend.
I don’t know. Maybe it’s just a big table.
It all made me remember this tweet from the Big Aristotle himself, though:
If u feel alone and by yourself, look in the mirror, and wow, there’s two of you. Be who you are. Who are you. I am me. Ugly, lol. Shaq
Smile, Shaq. You’re money.
Seriously, the iPhone pictures here don’t do these works justice. If you’re in New York, go see the show. It’s at 545 W. 25th St, between 10th and 11th, it’s free, and it’s open Wednesday-Saturday from 12-5 p.m.





