Real Talk: Lance, the dichotomy of a folk hero

This story is about much more than cycling, because Lance Armstrong is much more than a cyclist. Lance Armstrong became a folk hero; had this ugly chapter never taken place, he would've been the subject of Bob Dylan-style folk songs which would've lived forever. He's not famous because he won the Tour De France (who won this year? they still have the event). As a cancer survivor who rode his bike for hours in his hospital room after chemo treatments, he became the superhero who found pummeling the cycling competition easy compared to the epic battle that he won against cancer; that's why he was famous. His foundation Livestrong (whose band I'm still wearing and refuse to take off because of the effect the foundation has had) has raised over $500 MILLION for cancer research, saving an immeasurable amount of lives along the way. I heard Scott Van Pelt of ESPN say "the easiest story to sell is a story that people want to here." If the story ends there, it's a heroic story of epic proportions. You'd see this man in person and want to run up and kiss his feet. Problem is, he'd probably kick you in the face. By multiple accounts from many ppl who have met him or know him personally, he's a terrible person; egotistical, self-centered, merciless  manipulative, deceptive, calculated, and without shame. As the sport's reputation continued to fade due to so many big names being implicated in either PED use or blood doping, they started snitching (I don't fuck with snitches, if you're man enough to cheat, be man enough to shut up and accept when you're caught red handed) on Lance. Then, he told the lie we all wanted to hear; even if we knew it didn't make sense. So here we all were believing - well, more hoping - that in a sport full of dopers, the one guy who's clean is destroying all the dopers. Hell, they can't give away his stripped Tour De France titles, because all the guys who got 2nd and 3rd in those competitions were dirty too. Not only did he lie though (which honestly was understandable at that time), he vehemently and vociferously denied the charges, even going so far as to go on a internationally respected show like "Larry King Live" and used the "I beat a death sentence like cancer, why would I risk my health again?" narrative on TV; that was pretty low in hindsight. He then viciously and mercifully decided to ruin the lives (via lawsuits, defamation, alienation, etc.) of all his accusers and even everyone who disagreed with him; All while knowing they were telling the truth. The truth, or at least what he currently know of it is this: 1) Lance Armstrong admitted in an interview with Oprah Winfrey (a fairly safe person to confess to) to using PEDs and blood doping with what seemed like a very calculated, one-word answer laden, non-contrite interview. He brought his team of lawyers and crisis counselors with him so he didn't overly expose himself. 2) USADA stripped him of his 7 Tour De France titles after their investigation (including testimony from countless former teammates and competitors) led them to the conclusion that he ran "the most sophisticated doping program on the planet." 3) Even Livestrong, the organization that he founded/elevated, has cast him out due to the USADA actions. So which part of his story should last? This is why the dichotomy of influential human beings interests me. I've heard arguments he's still the best cyclist of all time, he was the best cheater (with the best back story) among a sport where every prominent performer was cheating; this is likely the dirtiest sport of them all. Regardless of the actions that lifted his foundation to prominence, the amount of good that Livestrong has done far outweighs the results of bike races. ESPN anchor Stuart Scott, who is fighting cancer, loves Lance for what Livestrong has done and I fully understand how him and anyone else who's dealt with cancer would feel that way. But at the same time, what we've now found - which was irrelevant to us before - is that he's a terrible person who ruined lives to sell the public on his lies. In baseball, those implicated with PEDs attempted to stay secluded hoping not to be subpoenaed long enough to slide into the Hall of Fame. They didn't go to Larry King's desk and use his show on a platform to put their acting lessons on display for their grand lie. It's easy to ask how he slept at night through all of this. I wish I could ask him, but I doubt I'd get a straight answer. This is a very convoluted study in the dichotomy of a man whose good deeds and fatal flaws provoke a twisted polarity. It's on each of us to decide what we believe he should truly be remembered for. Real Talk...

Ray Lewis: The end of an unprecedented reign of MLB

First and foremost, isn't that an ill picture of Ray Lewis? The intensity, the muscles, the grass in his hand, the pyrotechnics in the background. It looks like introduction of the heavyweight champion in the glory days of the WWF (before this WWE business). In a way, that's precisely what it is. Ray Lewis IS Middle Linebacker, no. Ray Lewis IS defense, no. Ray Lewis IS football. He's the immovable object waiting for you. He's that big bad motherfucker who you spent all week preparing for nothing because he's still bringing you the pain all day Sunday. He's brought intensity, athleticism, instinct, and intimidation to the highest level of defensive play for 17 years. SEVENTEEN FUCKING YEARS!! That's like an oximoron when you're talking about Middle Linebacker. Along with running back, it's one of those positions that features so much hitting and punishment that a decade is plenty to call a good career at the position. Ray's played twice as long as Dick Butkus, 50% longer than Mike Singletary, Jack Lambert and so many more of the greats. All this while playing at an elite level (no offense, London Fletcher) in an age featuring the biggest, fastest, strongest, and most skilled players we've ever seen; Ray Nitschke and Chuck Bednarik would need some HGH to bang with these boys. Many of his predecessors even admit that (find a recent "Greatest Linebacker of All Time" list he's not on top of). He epitomizes being the heart and soul of a franchise. He's been the driving force of a Ravens defense that's been historically dominant since it won a SuperBowl back before the arrival of all-Worlds Terrell Suggs and Ed Reed (Tony Siragusa, anyone?). He was SuperBowl MVP despite the slander of his name after getting in potentially disastrous trouble soon before. That trouble now seems like a lifetime ago as he's been a model leader, teammate, and off-field humanitarian ever since. Who doesn't wanna play on a team with Ray Lewis? The only reason he doesn't have a fist full of rings is the team's perpetual unsuccessful search for a true franchise QB; he got Trent Dilfer a Super Bowl ring as a parting gift before he got cut that offseason for his subpar play. He's the Shaq of my generation's football fandom; no disrespect to Wilt Chamberlain (or in this case Nitschke, Bednarik, Butkus, even LT) but like Shaq in his prime, Ray Lewis is the most dominant force I've set eyes in this position. I guess I knew he had to retire some day - even if I was denying it to myself - and honestly I'm thankful that he told us up front that it would be at the end of this year. It was appropriate that his last game at home, Sunday's shellacking of the Colts (poor Andrew Luck, no worries you have time), began and ended with Ray's signature dance, filled with stellar defense play in the middle. Even if it ends as soon as next week in Denver (don't get me started on Peyton's greatness), I'm thankful I was able to witness such an illustrious run from the best to ever do it at MLB. I'll defend my position calling him the G.O.A.T. to anybody, anytime. He made me root for the Ravens when my teams weren't involved. Hell, he had me watching linebacker play when it was so easy to just be focused on offense. I doubt I'll ever lay eyes on another Ray Lewis in my generation. See you in Canton in five years #52.

Do Better: Rex Ryan's bromance tattoo

Do not adjust your computer monitor, you are seeing this correctly; click it for an enlarged view if you feel the need. That is a tattoo of a woman wearing a #6 Mark Sanchez Jets jersey on Rex Ryan's shoulder. Ryan, head coach of the New York Jets, is lucky to still have his job with the Jets. Despite the fact that he's a good defensive coach, his personality and bluster have allowed the team to become a circus. Among his many ill-advised quotes and actions, one of the biggest reasons is his handling of the team's QB situation. He's hitched his future to the sinking ship that is Mark Sanchez (who hasn't seemed to develop, or possibly even regressed in his 4 years). This situation was exacerbated when they decided to get the most high profile, polarizingly divisive, mania-creating backup QB imaginable despite Sanchez's lack of confidence and subpar play; that would be Tim Tebow. Yet Ryan's been fiercely loyal to Sanchez to a fault; at some point, Tebow or McIlroy should have been allowed more opportunity while they were still playing meaningful football. Now as both he and Sanchez are on the chopping block, it surfaces that he has a tattoo of a woman (possibly his wife, who has her own crazy antics. Google "Michelle Ryan foot fetish" or look her up on MediaTakeOut if you don't believe me) wearing a Mark Sanchez jersey. Stop with the bromance and if you're lucky enough to retain your job, do whatever gives your team the best chance to win; even if it means parting with or benching the QB with whom your bromance warranted a tattoo. Rex, for the sake of your team, Do Better...

Django Unchained: Mixed Feelings

Have you ever been disappointed in yourself for being caught off-guard by something? As my logical mind takes back over now that my initial impulsive reaction has faded, that's how I feel about the movie Django: Unchained. From the previews, I fully believed this to be a revenge, shoot em up Western where the protagonist happens to be a former slave rather than an cowboy who goes to rescue the girl; all Tarantino style action (think Kill Bill and Shoot 'Em Up) with just enough flashbacks and vignettes to establish a bit of a storyline. What I wasn't ready for were the lengths that Tarantino would go to establishing the setting of 1850's Mississippi. Setting the movie slave backdrop in movies typically includes some whipping, some fierce talk, maybe inhumane working conditions, etc. A lot of Americans - black, white, and other - don't want to face the true degree of savagery that took place and furthermore it's hard to decipher exactly how graphic you can be about in the cinema for the masses to see. Well, Quentin Tarantino has never had that trepidation about finding the line of political correctness/appropriateness. He seems himself as an artist unbounded by societal standards of political correctness or decency. I'm told that me made a remark saying that "Roots" wasn't realistic enough about how heinous slavery was; I found this out since seeing the movie of course. So he kicked his depiction of slavery up a notch from what you're used to. I'm talking slaves getting eaten by dogs on camera. I'm talking a smiling slave master (Leo DiCaprio) instructing slave fighter to kill his opponent with a hammer simply to stay in the master's good graces. I'm talking a white man with Jamie Foxx's genitalia in one hand and a heated hunting knife in the other preparing to castrate him as he hangs in a device which appeared designed for that very purpose. I'm talking slaves put into a cast iron chest in the middle of a field in the middle of Mississippi summer and left there for 10 days as punishment for disappointing the improvised authority on the plantation. I'm talking a slave master explaining that he doesn't understand why the slaves don't rise up and kill the white people before threatening to bash Kerry Washington's beautiful skull in simply to prove his point that Blacks are dumb and subservient. And more. Then on another note, you had the actors' performances themselves. I recently watched Robert De Niro on "Inside the Actor's Studio" when he said it's not an actor's job to judge the character, just to understand him and portray him. But that didn't make it any easier to see DiCaprio, Don Johnson, and other contemporary actors very comfortably and casually throwing around the N word and cracking offensive jokes. The worst part was seeing Samuel L. Jackson as the ultimate House Nigga, he's the old, surly, foul-mouthed representation of Black self hatred itself. At one point he goes so far as to brag to Django about the different horrendous things that he and his masters have done to Blacks in the past. It was even more uncomfortable when you notice just how hard some of the White people in the theater laughed at some of the jokes I couldn't bear to laugh at. Although I have to admit it was a very well made movie, it was difficult to watch at times; my date that night is still offended by it over a week later. I will admit, there are times were Tarantino strikes comedic genius despite the grotesque periodical backdrop (a scene with the Klan complaining that the eye holes on their hood bags aren't adequate). It is also nice in the midst of that backdrop to see a former slave hero who shoots (and at one point whips) slave masters and will do anything to get his girl back. I had to marinate on this movie, watch some video of the actors speaking about it, and sleep on it and now I've arrived at this: I have to get over it or be labeled a hypocrite. I always say that the first step for America to move past racism is be honest about it, which will involve some uneasy moments; although this wasn't an activist call to face the realities of slavery, this is an example. Although I know that slavery is much worse than portrayed in any film we've ever seen (including this one), something about seeing new atrocities depicted or being taken away into a movie which recreates that period is still unsettling at the time. Tarantino has never been shy about controversial subjects (Nazi Germany, etc) or the even N-word, so it would do no good to try to reprimand him for the controversial nature of the film. But maybe we needed this. It gets people talking. Slavery was similar to a holocaust which lasted 500 years instead of 5; we - particularly white people - must escape the misconception that this was just Africans forced to do volunteer work. Our country was largely built on the backs of a population who were stripped from their homeland and forced through torture, castration, murder, rape, and more to do the dirty work for the businessmen that claim to have made our country great. the sooner we see these things and start being honest about them and their unmistakable effect on our country ever since, the sooner we can move past our taboos and start to build understanding.

Firearms for Modern Art

Art, made entirely from weapons. A better use for guns than killing each other...

Stop Me When I Start Lying: Guns for Heroes?

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." 

Although Harvey Dent (in "The Dark Knight") was talking about Julius Caesar and his absolute reign over Rome, it became true about him as he transitioned from passionately heroic DA into villainous "Two Face". Although it was a movie, this quote is very true of many situations. With that being said,the recent argument that gun lobbyists are making that to prevent tragedy such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, we must arm everyone with the potential to be a hero in such situations (bosses in office buildings, principals in schools, etc) has even less credibility. What happens when we put arms in the hands of everyone we believe is a potential hero and they stay at that post with no bad guy threats? So we're already assuming that all authority figures (and their successors who will have access to the same weapons) are trustworthy with such power and will step up and be valiant in such a trying moment. Even if we were right about the character of EVERY person we arm, what happens when normal business and normal human reactions take place? People get fired, get laid off, are forced into budget cuts or business decisions they don't agree with, get mad, etc...and we've armed them. We armed Osama Bin Laden and his forces long ago when we shared a common opponent during the Iraq-Iran War. We had a difference of opinion a few years afterwards, nasty words were exchanged, and all those weapons were turned on us; the rest is history. Recently, in many parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia there have been civil wars, coups, and leadership changes with varying levels of international involvement. Often the international community and the population themselves fully support the leaders forging the revolution.They perceive them to be liberating the people from the currently established tyranny; often, only to find that once in power they never want to relinquish it and will install their own brand of tyranny to maintain it. Power is a funny thing in what it can turn even the most ambitious and noble individual into. The liberty of many civilizations has been stolen to thunderous applause. So if you arm that 40 year old general during his conquest to liberate his people from the previous tyrant, how does that make you feel when the 55 year old version of the same man turns those guns on any of his people or any outsiders he considers a threat to his unbridled power? Obviously, the NRA is not talking about dictators, but the same concepts apply. The boss of your company may be less likely to accept outside opinions  from anyone if he knows that he is the one man in the building with the key to the weapons vault. These are things that must be considered before anyone starts handing out guns hoping that it acts as a deterrent; you've laid the seeds for these incidents to turn into full-fledged gunfights. Stop Me When I Start Lying...

Apocalypse Not

Apocalypse Now quickly became Apocalypse Not when 12/21/12 came and went without even an iota of the catastrophic fervor previously promised. I even gave it another day before I wrote this blog entry to allow for a little error. I mean, this was a theory millennia in the making, 24 hours of error could easily been forgiven. But here we are on the 23rd and there are no indications that any of the CGI effects from the movie "2012" will stop me from seeing the start of 2013. I almost didn't buy Christmas gifts because I didn't think the 25th would come. Guess it was prudent on my part resist the urge to blow all my life savings heading to Amsterdam and hoping I could blow it all on women, drinks, and weed brownies before the Armaggedon got me; it would've been a bummer to wake up the next morning had I went through with that plan. As nice as it would be to know the exact date that the world was going to end and plan for it, I'm not entirely sure I could ever truly trust any prognostication of that magnitude. As brilliant as the Mayans, Nostradamus, and so many others were none of the several dates tabbed as the end by different theories have been correct thus far. I know life is short, but I don't need it any shorter. I guess the moral of the story is live life to the fullest but not by someone else's timeline...