2013 NBA All-Star Weekend Preview/Predictions

In what is quickly becoming a yearly tradition, I give you my annual NBA All-Star Weekend predictions:


BBVA Rising Stars Challenge

Team Shaq	Team Chuck
Damian Lillard Kyrie Irving Andrew Nicholson Klay Thompson Harrison Barnes Chandler Parsons Dion Waiters Michael Kidd-Gilchrist Tyler Zeller Kemba Walker	Anthony Davis Kenneth Faried Kawhi Leonard Bradley Beal Ricky Rubio Tristan Thompson Nikola Vucevic Brandon Knight Isaiah Thomas Alexey Shved

Prediction:
Team Shaq (148) over Team Chuck (136)
MVP: Kyrie Irving

While this game is essentially unwatchable, I will still eat my hat if Shaq's team doesn't win. Talent-wise, it's not even close. The problem with a game like this is that so little of it actually resembles a real basketball game, that sometimes talent doesn't really matter as much as it normally would. So, maybe I should take back what I said about eating my hat. I'll definitely eat something though. Maybe a nice piece of pizza or a steak. That's pretty much the same thing, right?

Sears Shooting Stars

Team Harden	Team Westbrook
James Harden Sam Cassell Tina Thompson	Russell Westbrook Robert Horry Maya Moore

Team Bosh	Team Lopez
Chris Bosh Dominique Wilkins Swin Cash	Brook Lopez Muggsy Bogues Tamika Catchings

Prediction: Team Harden

Speaking of unwatchable… I'll go with the home town team because they've got the best (and maybe only) shooters, but if you expect me to delve any deeper into it than that, then you're even crazier than that NBA Executive that keeps renewing this event every year.

Taco Bell Skills Challenge

East:
Jrue Holiday
Brandon Knight
Jeff Teague

West:
Tony Parker
Damian Lillard
Jeremy Lin

Prediction: Damian Lillard

My other prediction is that I fall asleep watching, startle myself awake as they're presenting the trophy, only to realize that I still don't care who won, and go back to sleep.

Foot Locker Three-Point Contest 

East:
Paul George
Kyrie Irving
Steve Novak

West:
Ryan Anderson
Matt Bonner
Stephen Curry

Prediction: Stephen Curry

It's always easier for bigger guys to win this contest, that's why I'm choosing the little guy with the bad ankles. It's also why I should never go to Vegas.

Sprite Slam Dunk Contest

East:
Gerald Green
Terrence Ross
James White

West:
Eric Bledsoe
Jeremy Evans
Kenneth Faried

Prediction: James White

I'm actually pretty excited for this one. Not because last years contest was so good (it wasn't) and not because I think the Toronto player will win (he won't). But because I have honestly been waiting for James White to be in an NBA Slam Dunk Contest since 2001. If you don't believe me, I've got the super low res .avi files from the 2001 McDonald's Slam High School Dunk Contest still saved on my computer to prove it. That's pre-YouTube folks. I also still have the 2006 NCAA Contest as well, which, if he just could have got that last attempt down, might have been one of the greatest ever.

Trust me, I've been waiting on this dude for a while.

My only fear is that it's been over 10 years, and he's now in his 30's. Perhaps the between-the-legs dunks from the foul line (!) that he used to do are a thing of the past. A distant memory from his younger days. I'm hoping not.

But even if White isn't what he used to be, Gerald Green is back, and it seems like he's jumping even higher than ever. Add in Bledsoe, who might be one of the best athletes in the league, and it's shaping up to be a good one. Hopefully...

62nd NBA All-Star Game

Eastern Conference	Western Conference
Carmelo Anthony LeBron James Kevin Garnett Rajon Rondo Dwyane Wade Chris Bosh Tyson Chandler Luol Deng Paul George Jrue Holiday Kyrie Irving Brook Lopez Joakim Noah	Kevin Durant Blake Griffin Dwight Howard Kobe Bryant Chris Paul LaMarcus Aldridge Tim Duncan James Harden David Lee Tony Parker Zach Randolph Russell Westbrook

Prediction: East (155) over West (143)
MVP: LeBron James

I think the West has the better team. I do. But if there's one thing I learned watching last years game, it's simple: LeBron James is better at basketball than anyone else on the planet. And I'm not talking a little bit better. I mean, noticeably better. Even when sharing the floor with the nine next best players, he is still head and shoulders better anyone else. The West should have the advantage, but the team with the best player on the floor at any given time, should never be counted out.

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part IX)

I have to tread lightly this week. Not because what I have to say is particularly controversial or anything, but simply because I'm about to discuss a person that I can't hang out with …who I actually do hang out with. And I'm pretty sure he reads this blog.

Look, the title has been a little misleading from the beginning. Pretty much every 'Person That I Can't Hang Out With' is based on somebody that I actually do hang out with. I'm not trying to be a hypocrite, it's just that the real title of these posts should be: 'Things That People Do That Kind of Annoy Me, But Not Really. They're More Like Foibles. I Could Still, Realistically, Hang Out With Them In Spite of This, and Often Do.' Not quite as catchy, right? So, if you happen to be reading one of these, thinking to yourself "Hmm, there's something about this that I can't quite put my finger on… wait! He's talking about me!" Chances are, you're right. I probably am. I'm not trying to end our friendship over the internet or anything. I swear.

I swear.

No, really, I swear. As in, use profanity. I try to avoid doing so in mixed company, when it might offend someone, or be considered rude (assuming being rude isn't the point), but most of the time I don't give it much thought. They're just words. And like every other word, they're at my disposal as part of the English language.

Now, I don't have any problem with people that don't swear. In fact, I kind of respect it. Words only have as much power as you give them, so really, I've taken away almost all of the power/impact that those words might wield, simply by being so flippant in my usage of them. I mean, if you tell 30 people every single day that you love them (including the barista at Starbucks when she gets your Double Tall, Low Fat, Extra Carmel, Frappé Mocha Cappuccino just right), then the word 'love' has lost a lot of it's impact. Even if you sit across from a girl, take her hand in yours, gaze longingly into her eyes and whisper: "I love you," it still means less if you've said it to 80 different girls over the years. It's not completely meaningless, but at the very least, it means a little less than it would if you had never said it to a girl before in your life, right?

So, while I respect people that refrain from swearing, I'm especially envious of those that will use the occasional curse word in a moment of genuine anger/frustration/fear. I mean, if a person that has never dropped an F-Bomb in their life, glares at you with clenched fists at their sides and snarls "Go fuck yourself", that can send a chill right down your spine. You know that they're more angry or hurt than they've ever been, and you know that you've truly done something wrong. More-so than if your jerk-off buddy from college says it to you five times a day - regardless of whether you asked to borrow a pen, tried to steal a french fry off his plate, or got his sister pregnant.

In recent years I've made a fairly conscious effort to be more selective with my use of profanity. Perhaps I'm older and wiser, or maybe it's a concerted effort to gain these words back some of their lost impact. That said, I'll admit, a few drinks always ruins my resolve, and soon the expletives are flowing as freely as the beer that rendered me in such a state. All my good work undone. All impact I've tried to regain, lost.

And really, that's what this post is about: the impact and effectiveness of such words.  You see, as much as I respect (or at the very least, don't look down my nose at) those that choose to refrain from the use of profanity, there is a close cousin to this sort of person that I don't abide. A person that, dare I say, I can't hang out with: The Faux Swearer.

Shoot. Heck. Frick. You know the words. Neutered versions of swears that almost sound like them, but are technically just different enough to not actually be swears. I'm not sure if I can even properly explain what I have against this. It's sort of like, 'look, this is where a person would normally swear, but because I don't swear, I'm going to-sort-of-swear here, but it's technically not a swear, so I didn't swear. Ok?' And I don't know. I guess it's just like, why bother? Why go to all this work to avoid doing something, when really you're basically still doing it?

To me it sort of feels like a person saying "I would never ride a motorcycle, they're too dangerous, and I would never risk my safety like that." And then two days later you see them drive past on something that looks exactly like a motorcycle, and shout "Hey, I thought you said…" to which they interrupt "It's not a motorcycle! The guy that sold it to me said it was a motorized bicycle." Well, to me, that doesn't change the fact that you said a motorcycle was dangerous, and just because what you're riding isn't technically a motorcycle, that doesn't magically make it any less dangerous than one. If you don't swear, good on you, don't swear. But let's knock it off with this technicality nonsense. Just because you're not saying the words, doesn't mean your intention behind them is any different

Let's go back to the whole 'love' example. If a guy loves a girl, he wants to let her know, and he wants it to be a special moment, so he says "I love you." He doesn't say "I lurve you." It doesn't change the meaning behind the words either way, it doesn't change the amount that he loves her in his heart. But it does ruin the way in which he tried to express his feelings to her. And that to me this the difference between 'shit' and 'shoot'. You can say 'frick' in school, but at the end of the day, I would rather hear a kid say 'Aw man, more fucking homework?' than 'I hope you go home tonight and fricking choke on a gun and pull the trigger.'  Sure, you'd prefer the first kid not swear at all, but I think everyone can agree that the second kid said something far worse. If you were entering the data into a cold, emotionless computer program, it would tell you the first one was the more offensive sentence, because technically speaking 'fucking' is a worse word that 'fricking'. And that's my point. It's not the words themselves that matter as much as the meaning/intentions behind them.

And sure, maybe some moments in life simply don't call for full on profanity. I'll admit, I do have a fondness for 'heck'. I don't really know why. I have no problem saying 'hell', but in some instances I prefer the use of 'heck'. In a sort of 'flip convention on it's ear' kind of way. For example. if you ask me if I want to go to a movie, I'll probably respond "Heck yes, I do!" It's sort of a false-excitement thing. I'm basically pretending to be more excited than the situation actually calls for. And I think the use of 'heck' in that instance, rather than 'hell' helps drive that playfulness of the language home. Plus, 'hells yeah' is a little too frat boy, and over-used for my liking.

Look, I'm not saying that F-Bombs should be used on television or that kids should have free range to say them in schools, that's not my point. In fact, I got a great thrill from the use of 'frak' in Battlestar Galactica, and 'cuss' in The Fantastic Mr. Fox. Real swears wouldn't have been nearly as fun, and in the case of Mr. Fox, would have seemed grossly out of place. In fact, I kind of prefer when swears get beeped on TV. It almost has more impact. On South Park and Family Guy they don't shy away from swearing, they just simply beep it out. But when you buy the DVD box sets, they're not beeped out at all. And honestly, it loses almost all of it's impact. I barely notice the real swears, but the beeps during a broadcast draws my attention to it every time.

But I digress, basically, my point is: I can easily forgive the occasional 'shoot' or 'frigg' for the exact reasons that I just mentioned. If a situation doesn't call for full profanity, but could still use an extra adjective or two, by all means, sprinkle in a couple of faux swears. If this was simply the case, I wouldn't have my panties in such a bunch, and I wouldn't feel the need to be writing this post right now. However, there is another use of the faux swear that irks me every time, and makes this post more than necessary. I'm referring to a formally established expression, or proper title, that may contain profanity, but has been replaced with a faux swear. It would be like if someone said "Aw man, I just stepped in dog shoot." Now, as established, I don't mind if the person says 'dog crap', that's fine. But the use of 'shoot' makes no sense and falls more into that 'look, I want you to do the math and go 'shoot? oh, he means 'shit', but I'm still taking a moral stance against actually saying the word, so I'm replacing it with it's facsimile, even though it doesn't make sense in the context of the sentence.'

"Shoot happens"? "Crap Happens"? No, "Shit Happens." That's the expression. If you don't want to use it, fine, But don't bastardize it. I mean, you can see how that might frustrate, right? I'll give you a recent example, one from a real conversation, with a real person (that I'm trying really hard not to completely offend as he reads this):

"Yeesh, new Jackbutt movie did 50 mill."

Jackbutt? Really? I mean, not to be a dick, but when I first read that, it took me an honest 37 seconds to figure out what he was even talking about. Granted, I can be a little slow from time to time, but still. When it finally dawned on me, it was like a revelation. "Oh! He means Jackass…" And by that point I was more caught up with the use of 'Jackbutt' than I was with the actual point of the statement: to start a discussion about how much money the movie had made, and if it was worthy of doing so. And I think this is the epitome of what I'm trying to say. The word itself isn't offensive. It's just a word. In fact, one of the great joys we had in childhood was the fact that an ass (as in, a donkey) wasn't a swear. And if we could find a creative reason to have to refer to the animal as an ass, then we were allowed to do so. We could care less about donkeys, but we loved talking about them because it was like we were getting away with something. And in a way, we were. But only because the word 'ass' has more than one meaning. One is a swear, one is not.

In the case of the movie title Jackass, it's not. So the refusal to say the actual, proper name, is more of a stubborn misguided attempt to prove that you never use any swear words, than it is you actually avoiding saying a swear word. It would be like if you knew a guy named Roger Shittlenicky, but you called him Mr. Shootlenicky. That would be ridiculous, right? Shittlenicky is not a swear, even though it forces you to pronounce the syllable 'shit' over the course of saying it. And that's why 'Jackbutt' seems so ridiculous to me too.

But maybe Jackass is a bad example. Let's say you wanted to discuss the movie Young People Fucking. Now you have a legitimate dilemma, since this is a proper title, and as I've discussed, it's poor form to change the formal title of something. But, it also contains the very real use of profanity as well. Profanity which I am more than fine with you taking issue against saying. I don't know, I don't have all the answers. I'd probably be fine with you saying 'Young People Effing' and I don't know why this is different than 'Jackbutt', but somehow it is.

And I guess that brings us to a big one. What about the dreaded N-Word? Here I am preaching the power and meaning of a word, and yet I would hesitate to ever say it. In fact, I'm obviously reluctant to even type it. And I'm not a racist person. I can't fathom a situation where I would say that word in a hateful or malicious way, and yet, even knowing in my heart of hearts that I mean nothing by it, I still won't say it. I mean, what if I'm just reading a quote in which someone says it? What if I'm listening to a rap album, and simply singing along as the N-Bombs fly? It's just a word. It only has as much power as the intention behind it when it's said, and yet I still can't do it. Why not? Right now people don't know what to do about the Kanye West / Jay-Z song "Ni**as in Paris". It's the song's proper title, so if it lands in the top 10 on the Billboard 100, how does one (and by one, I mean 'white people') refer to it? It's a proper name, just like Mr. Shittlenicky, so people should just say it, right? Well, I could try to argue either way, but in three and a half minutes of some of the greatest television ever produced, Dave Chapelle sums it up perfectly.

(Maybe don't watch this at work with the speakers turned up… do it at home, or with headphones on. You've been warned.)



Perhaps not the funniest, or most iconic of Chapelle's sketches, but I can't think of a better way to convey my point than that. Grantland's Rembert Browne described it best in his brilliant March Madness style bracket to pick the best Chapelle Show sketch of all time:

"…it's cripplingly uncomfortable and hilarious. Watching and hearing white people say "Niggar" over and over again, in the masterful context that Chappelle set up, is still jarring, even when you've seen the sketch hundreds of times and know when it's coming." 

And that's the point. By all intents and purposes, in that context - a context which I've spent the majority of this post arguing in favour of - the use of the N-Word should be fine. But it's not.

So, I don't know, maybe that does make me a hypocrite. If I only care about the intention of a word, the context in which it's used, but still consider some words taboo, regardless of their context or intention, perhaps I am just being completely sanctimonious in my judgement of people that are unwilling to use words that they consider to be off limits. If I'm not willing to use certain words, then why shouldn't they be able to make the same choice?

But seriously, Jackbutt? The line has to be drawn somewhere. And that's why, Mr. Faux Swearer, you have this one thing that kind of annoys me, but not really. It's more like a foible. I can still, realistically, hang out with you in spite of this, and often do.

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part VIII)

The Sixth Sense

The Usual Suspects

Planet of the Apes

The Empire Strikes Back

Titanic

What do all these movies have in common?

SPOILER ALERT! They all have twist endings.

There's nothing quite like being thrown for an unexpected loop while watching a movie. Especially in today's day and age where audiences are so savvy that it's nearly impossible to sneak anything past them. But, considering it's so fun to be blindsided by a movie's twist, people sure do put a lot of effort into trying to figure out the entire movie before any twists even have a chance to occur. It's like no one wants to be the one that didn't see it coming. I don't really understand why that is either. I mean, for me, there's nothing better than completely losing yourself in a movie, and then having that 'What?!?!' moment when a great twist catches you completely off guard. You know, that type of moment where the filmmakers could basically jump out in front of you and yell 'Gotcha!'

It's hard to describe. It's almost as if the realization washes over you. Like you've been hit with a sudden burst of adrenaline. It's not like your mind was completely numb while watching the movie prior to the twist or anything, but it might not have been terribly overly-stimulated either. So, if you're relaxed, just unsuspectingly watching along with your guard completely down. Enjoying the movie, but safe in the assumption that it's playing out exactly like you expect it will... but then suddenly a big twist happens! Your previously relaxed brain goes from zero to sixty in a fraction of a second. Neurons fire into overdrive. Grey matter frantically tries to piece together clues or recall any prior moments of foreshadowing. Does it all make sense? Is it riddled with loop holes (or worse yet, is it altogether completely illogical)? Did I really not see that coming? Once your brain calms back down from that rush, and if the twist holds true, makes sense, and more importantly caught you completely by surprise, then that 'What?!?!' moment is unlike any other experience that you can have during a movie.

And that's why I don't understand the folks that spoil such moments for other people.

First of all, there's the people that seem to take some sort of sick pleasure in revealing spoilers. The people that purposefully tell the guy that they know has been waiting forever to see a certain movie, exactly how it ends. Or what the big twist was at the end of the last season of the TV show that he's currently in the middle of watching. Or what the score was in Game 7 of the championship game that he has recorded at home on his PVR because he went to his son's hockey game last night instead of watching it live. These people will spoil anything. Even if the person specifically asked them not to. Maybe even especially if the person asked them not to.

To these would be spoilers, no amount of "I haven't seen {blank} yet, don't say anything about it…" in the world can hold them back. Heck, it might only serve to give them greater pleasure. These people don't care about movies. They just like ruining other people's fun. This is the type of person that sees a child holding a balloon and wants to pop it. Sees a couple on their first date, sharing an ice cream cone, and wants to knock it to the ground. They 'accidentally' kick the seat in front of them on airplanes. Or blow cigarette smoke in a person's face on the street. And nothing, absolutely nothing, gives them more pleasure than farting in a elevator. These people are sociopaths. A burden on our fair society. A menace that must be stopped.

Of course not everyone spoils things on purpose. Some things are genuinely spoiled by accident. Some times a person just doesn't even realize they've let an important plot point slip while talking about a movie they've just seen. Maybe they think you already know the ending, and can discuss it with you freely, or maybe they just simply said something without realizing that it gave away the twist. It sucks, for sure. There's nothing worse than having something spoiled for you. But there was no ill-will or malice intended either. Sure, the person probably could have been more cautious or vigilant or aware of what they were saying - I'm certainly not saying that they should be let off the hook completely - but at the end of the day, this one is a little more innocent. Especially if it doesn't become a habit.

Naturally, these are the very extreme ends of the spectrum. Most people fall somewhere in between the semi-innocent slip-of-the-tongue guy and the vindictive monster that can only feel good about himself through the pain and torment of others. But regardless of any of that, the real question we need to be asking ourselves isn't: who is doing this? Or even: to what degree? But rather: why? Why do so many movies or TV shows or sporting events end up getting spoiled? Especially considering that the majority of the time the spoiling is done by a person in our lives that we consider to be a friend.

Why would seemingly normal, well-adjusted human beings so easily and willingly engage in such a hurtful act? Maybe it's just built into some people, you know, like these people spend so much time being alert and cautious to make sure they never get conned or duped in real life, that it bleeds over and just naturally makes them not want to be conned or duped by a movie either. Maybe these people just don't like to be 'tricked'. Maybe they don't like to feel like the filmmakers outsmarted them. Maybe that's why they end up spoiling movies: they assume everyone else feels the same way that they do, and therefore think they are doing people a favour.

I don't know. That seems a little crazy. But how else can we explain it? I guess in a lot of cases, it almost feels to me like the person basically can't hold it in any longer. That they're so hyped up on the experience that they need to share it with another person. And look, I've come out of movies so excited and eager to talk about the ending with another person that I could barely hold my tongue too. But that's still no excuse for spoiling it to another person.

The only other thing I can think of is that maybe some people are just so obsessed with being the first to know about something that a movie becomes one of the few chances that they get to tangibly prove it. Like, "I saw that movie before you, and here's proof!" I mean, none of this sounds like a very good explanation, but it's hard to believe that every person that spoils a movie is a sociopath that gets off on bringing other people down. I mean, that just can't be true, can it?

I guess there could be some subconscious thing that our brain does, where it equates the thrill of the experience to the twist itself. Like, our brain sort of does this weird math where it thinks that by telling another person about a twist that thrilled us so much, that we'll somehow give them that exact same thrill that we experienced. And that maybe, the feeling of excitement that we equated to the movie, they will somehow equate to us, the story teller, instead.

That's a little far-fetched too, seeing as how logically, we all know that the twist itself has no real emotional impact without the carefully crafted film making and storytelling that lead up to it. You know, those minor little things like plot and character development that made us emotionally invested in the movie in the first place. That investment is pretty hard to obtain, no matter what type of movie it is, and without it, any attempted twist will invariably fall flat. It's the reason why so many attempted twists do fail. It's also the reason why the ones that work, strike an even deeper chord with us.  I mean, if I just said to you: 'Hey, imagine some astronauts landed on a planet, and it was ruled by talking monkeys, but it turned out to be Earth!'. Would you care at all? Or would you just look at me, kind of confused, and say: 'Umm… that's nice' and walk away.

A person needs to be invested in the plot. Invested in the characters. They have to have an emotional interest in what's happening to those characters. Then, and only then, when they're wondering if these people that they've grown to care about will survive, if they'll make it out alive, if they can just somehow manage to find their way back to Earth… that's when it's shocking to discover that they never will. That this planet was Earth all along, and there's no going back.

Err… spoiler alert. Sorry.

And that's the other thing. Sure, I flippantly just spoiled the entire plot of the original Planet of the Apes in favour of making a small, and not very funny little joke just now. And maybe I'll justify it to myself as "Hey, that movie is over 40 years old, the statute of limitations has run out on it's ability to be 'spoiled' any more." But really, that's not true. A lot of people try to argue that after a certain amount of time, spoiling no longer applies. Some people say that it's 10 years. Some people say that it's 10 months. Some people say that if you didn't see the very first screening at your local theatre, then you didn't care enough about it in the first place, and 10 minutes after the credits have rolled, spoiling should be fair game.

Look, I get that we can't tip toe around every plot point ever twisted in the history of movies for the rest of time. Especially ones like Planet of the Apes, Citizen Kane or Empire Strikes Back that are so ingrained in the very fabric of society and pop culture that they're almost unavoidable. I firmly, and somewhat hypocritically believe that not everything needs to have a 'spoiler alert' in front of it either. 'Spoiler alert' gets used way too much, and yet people still clamour for it to be used even more. Sure, it has it's place, but as with most things, it all comes down to the simple logic and common sense inherent to the unspoken social contract that most of us choose to follow. Are you giving them a chance to realize that you're talking about a movie that they haven't seen, but still want to, prior to revealing any major plot points? Good, then it's up to them to realize that the situation is ripe for spoilers, and it becomes their responsibility to separate themselves from it before said spoilers are inevitably revealed. I'd say for anyone with half a brain, a 'spoiler alert' is not necessary

That said, if you don't even give them a chance to screen themselves, or worse yet, force it on them so that they never had a choice to begin with, then you're just being a spoiler dick.

And spoiler dicks are definitely people that I could never hang out with.

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part VII)

Last week's discussion, at it's core, was about the decision one must make when faced with the choice between a sub-par product or nothing at all. Basically, there are two schools of thought: That something - anything - is better than nothing. Or that a person must set standards for themselves, and never settle for less than those standards, even if it means going without. My personal philosophy is mostly inline with the first mindset, and I believe that the post reflected this. But, I also fully concede that there's nothing wrong with having standards, and never selling yourself short of them. In fact, it's pretty admirable. I wasn't really arguing for one philosophy over the other, rather, the main point I was trying to convey was that if you do go the second route, just don't be a dick about it.

What we didn't really discuss at the time was that there was always a third option. For the sake of making my point, the scenario I laid out was that your only choice was substandard beer or nothing at all. But, let's not forget, in reality everyone has a tap, and the third choice is always water.

And I don't much care for water.

I don't really know why. It's essentially free, it's can be very refreshing, and it's good for you. And yet, too many nights I have opened my fridge to find the last carton of Tropicana already gone, only to spend an embarrassing amount of time and energy trying to come up with a solution - any solution - that would make me not have to resort to a plain old glass of water. Almost without fail, the 'alternative' ends up being the worst thing I have ever tasted. Far worse than any glass of water could ever be. In fact, following a particularly horrendous stretch of failure, I now keep an 'emergency stash' of Kool-Aid mix hidden away. Just in case.

I'm aware of how ridiculous this all sounds. I'm not here to try and convince you that I am in the right in this situation. I know that I am not. But that doesn't mean that the enlightened ones that only drink the natural clear stuff are a perfect bunch either. Oh, far from it. In fact, there's a particular breed that not only can I not endorse. I flat out can't hang out with them either.

They are the bottled water purists.

Yes, on paper, this sounds like it's just going to be a lazy rehash of the same Beer Snob post from last week. But these people deserve to be shunned separately. They deserve to be shamed. Because water is water, people. And if you 'love' it out of a bottle but would sooner cut off your own arm than drink a glass filled from a tap, then your issues run much deeper than I could ever possibly hope to shed light on in a simple blog post.

Piggy-backing my sentiments from last week, sure, if you've got a choice, by all means, reach for the bottle. If you're in Mexico, yes, I wouldn't advise taking a drink from a random hose you find on the street either. But if there's not a bottle in sight, you're thirsty, claim to prefer water, and aren't in a third world country? Just turn on the damn tap. The water that comes out has a pretty decent regulation system in place, and the chances of you catching full-blown AIDS is pretty low.

Besides, think about how much extra waste goes into bottled water. Between the factory that bottles it, the trucks that ship it, the plastic they wrap it in, and the very bottles themselves… it's ironically doing an awful lot of indirect, secondhand damage to the very mountain streams that it claims to have been bottled from.

Bottled water is the biggest con that an industry has ever pulled. And society took the bait; hook, line and sinker. Again, as a guy that mostly shuns water, I don't really have a horse in this race. So, I'll go easy on you if, for whatever reason, you claim to simply prefer it from a bottle instead of a tap. It's your money, and as we discovered last week, I'm the last person that should be judging how you spend it. But, if you're thirsty, really thirsty, and the only option is tap water or nothing, and you choose to go without? You got problems, kid.

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part VI)

What's this? A blog post? How could this be?

A New Year's resolution, perhaps? Well, not really. It's not that I look down on New Year's resolutions in general. They're just not something that I do. And although it seems like the sort of thing that cynical old Travis would look down his nose at from up on his high horse, in this case, if people are trying to improve themselves, then hey, more power to them. But again, it's just not really something I do. Especially the self improvement part.

So, why then did the blog drop off the face of the earth for months only to reemerge on the first Friday of 2013? That couldn't just be coincidence, right? Well, I guess the turning of the calendar did play a small part in me choosing to post today rather than next week or last. But mostly, I was simply ready to come back to it. So, once again... here we are.

Now, if you're thinking something along the lines of: "Hey, he's been gone so long, he must have something really important to say in order to break his silence." Well… prepare to be disappointed. I haven't been in a writer's lab, carefully crafting my stance on topics such as religion or abortion or the death penalty. I haven't been creating my thesis on evolution or sweating over every single sentence and punctuation mark used within a 10,000 word manifesto on the holocaust that took me every single day of the past three months to get just right. Nope. None of that stuff.

In fact, that was part of the problem. Once the weeks had turned into months and eventually entire seasons had passed, it became harder and harder to just open a blank word document and start typing. Not because I had nothing to say, but rather because nothing I say is ever very important. Which, if I'm honest, is the way I like it. But it did feel like: "Man, I've been gone for so long, if I do come back, it's gotta be with a bang. It's gotta be with a purpose. It's gotta be like 'this is what took me so long to say'."

And you would all read along, in full agreement that it was well worth the wait. Tears streaming down your face - with joy one second, and sorrow the next - as the very words before your eyes moved you to emotional depths never before realized. As revelations were made, and as truths were spoken. As every sentence, each it's own finely crafted work of literary art, would make you think that nothing greater had ever been written, only to be exceeded by the next. As everything you'd ever thought or felt, but had never been able to properly express in words, was now laid in front of you in beautiful prose, you would think: I'm surprised it didn't take him longer. And every time I stared at that blinking cursor on that blank page… with that mindset? Well, you can see why it was hard to get going again.

But then I realized something. Who cares? I certainly don't. My two loyal readers certainly don't. And that's why I'm basically just picking up right where I left off. As if nothing ever happened. Which is why I bring you:

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part VI): The Beer Snob

I like beer. In fact, I always buy myself 'the good stuff'. More expensive, sure, but worth every extra penny if you ask me. I'm this way with a lot of things (mostly food related). Tropicana tastes better than President's Choice orange juice. Maynards brand Swedish Berries are better than the no name equivalent. And if you even consider a brand of Ketchup other than Heinz, well, you should probably just scrape the taste buds off your tongue right now, because you're really not using them properly.

But Travis, you say, I thought this was about how you can't hang out with a Beer Snob? The very portrait of a person that you just painted yourself to be…

Yes, true. After reading that you would certainly be well within your rights to label me as a Beer Snob. I probably wouldn't even put up much of a fight trying to convince you otherwise. But, I honestly don't consider myself one. In fact, I really only even mention my penchant for better quality beers so that you realize that even though I'm claiming I can't hang out with a Beer Snob, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good beer. I 'get' being a Beer Snob, I just don't condone it. And even though I can count the number of times I've bought a case of Coors Light on one hand (...of a war vet that lost both his arms in 'Nam), I think there is one very key difference between myself and true beer snobbery:

I will drink the other stuff.

Sure, if I'm at a liquor store, picking out something to put in my fridge at home, I'll always pay a few bucks more and get something I love. Often something European. Always something more expensive. I'm not trying to impress people. I'm not trying to pretend I'm classier than I am. The beers that I 'love' just happen to cost more money than the beers that I simply 'like'. But I still 'like' the other stuff. If I'm out at a bar, and they only have Molson, Coors and Bud on tap? No big deal. Bring me out a Coors, I'll happily drink it.

And I think that's the difference between a person such as myself and an actual Beer Snob. Given the choice between a 'lesser' beer or no beer at all, their mug might actually sit empty. At the very least, they'll make a pretty big stink over it. Look, beer is beer. I'm not saying the difference between 'good' beer and 'lesser' beer is negligible. If it was, then I've been wasting a lot of money over the years. No, there is a difference, for sure. But it's not completely night and day like the Beer Snob would have you believe. Same with Coca-Cola. Same with Doritos Chips. Same with Abercrombie & Fitch. Yes, given the choice, I'll always take a Coke over it's unbranded equivalent, even if it costs a little more. But if I'm at someone's place, and all they have is Western Family Cola, I'm still going to take that over nothing. There's no point in complaining - a 'real' Coke isn't suddenly going to appear out of no where. But that's not really the point is it? A true Snob doesn't only drink the good stuff, no, that's secondary to making sure that you know that they only drink the good stuff. That they have higher standards than you. That they are better than you. I'll gladly pour myself a Dr. Skipper without making a peep about how much better a 'real' Dr. Pepper would be. I don't think a true snob would.

At the end of the day, 'fake' stuff is usually about 80% as good as 'real' stuff. Just because I find the extra 20% worth the extra money, most of the time, doesn't mean that everyone else does. That's a decision for each of us to make on our own. Yes, I consider that the difference in the quality of a Hoegaarden makes it worth the extra cost, but I don't shop at the aforementioned Abercrombie & Fitch. Not because their stuff isn't good. It's just not worth the extra money to me. It might be to you. And that's where we differ. But just because we differ, doesn't make one of us right, and the other of us wrong.

Unless you buy something other than Heinz Ketchup. Then you are a horrible person and are absolutely, scientifically, 100% wrong.

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part V)

I've got a few beefs with Facebook that I've been looking forward to airing out on this here blog.  The problem is, the theme of this string of posts has been 'people that I can't hang out with' and therein lies the problem.  Facebook, in it's very essence, is all about not having to hang out with people.  So really, I'll be talking about people that I can't hang out with because of the way they use a website which makes it so that I never have to hang out with them.  Does that make sense?  No?  That's ok, I kind of got lost in that mishmash of logic myself…

Anyways, there's a lot of ways that Facebook can (and most certainly does) annoy.  Pictures of the food you're about to eat.  New high scores that you've achieved in Farmville.  That clever status update about how you're so glad the weekend is finally here.  I don't know.  Maybe that's the very minutia upon which Facebook gained it's popularity.  Maybe deep down those are the details about you that people really do want to see and know.  The peak behind the curtain that is the mundane in each and every one of our lives.  I mean, 955 million active users can't be wrong… right?  But for me, that's the sort of stuff I can do without.  I don't know, maybe I'd miss it once it was gone.  But for now, I tend to skim past most of it.

But again, these are just minor annoyances.  Nothing to make it so that I can't hang out with you.  Just things I could do without.  And then there's the ones that go beyond.  The ones not only could I do without, but also want to make me feed you your keyboard one button at a time and strangle you with the mouse cord.  Wait... the wireless mouse cord?  Dammit.  Anyways, without further adieu, they are:

Photo etiquette.  If you take the time to post photos, I'll probably take the time to look at them.  I might even grace you with a witty comment or two, depending on how generous I'm feeling.  By clicking accept on that friendship request that you sent, I've basically declared that I have an interest in your life.  Not just to you, but also to myself.  I'm not one to try and have every single person I've ever met appear on my friends list, simply so that I feel popular.  No, I consider myself fairly selective, and as such, the number of 'friends' I keep isn't very high.  It could probably even be trimmed down by another 20 to 40 people, but for now, it's a manageable amount.  So, as long as the album doesn't sound like the most boring thing ever posted in the history of the internet, chances are I'll click far enough in that I'll at least glance at the thumbnail view of the whole album.

Most of the time it's a few quick snaps from the wedding you were at on the weekend.  If I'm lucky, it's pictures of you and your bikini clad friends frolicking amongst the waves of some Caribbean paradise.  Sometimes it's the aforementioned food that you made for dinner.  Either way, it's rarely a waste of my time, and at worst, a mild annoyance.  Until you get to one of the offending albums.  The albums that make you regret ever having signed up for Facebook in the first place.  The camera dump.  250 pictures that easily could have been edited down to 40.  Ten of the same shot, while you try to get one where everyone's eyes are open and cousin Billy isn't picking his nose.  20 pictures of your kid on the swing.  Look, we don't mind your kid.  He's kind of cute.  But pick the best one (I'll even let you have two or sometimes three) and let's move on.  I might say 'aww…' when I see the first pic, just like you had hoped I would when you posted it.  But what good is it, if by the time I get to picture number 30, I start cursing the kid's name?  Look, I get it, he's having the time of his life in each and every picture.  They're all great, well composed shots, and it's hard to choose which is actually the best.  But do it.  For the love of all that is good, just do it.

If you're a glutton for punishment - which I am - then you might keep on scrolling.  And that's when you get to the pictures whose sole purpose seems to be to annoy me.  I'm talking about the ones that haven't been properly rotated (once upon a time this might have been acceptable… but in today's day and age, where it takes just one click of the mouse to get it right, it's a complete and utter slap in the face) or the out of focus ones, or the ones of the ground that you accidentally snapped while pulling the camera out of it's case.  I know what you've done.  You plugged in the camera and clicked 'upload all'.  You think we'll be able to realize and accept this.  But all it says to me is that you couldn't be bothered to take the time to edit or arrange the pictures, so why should I take the time to look at them?

I could probably go on for days about proper photo album etiquette.  But I won't.  You see, there's one more thing that must be addressed, and I'd better get it off my chest now.  Status etiquette.  You know what a status is, right?  Where you type a little blurb and post it for other's to see.  Sometimes it's a funny joke.  Some times it's a serious announcement.  Sometimes it's just simply what you did today.  Since it can be almost anything and everything, it's wide open to the annoyances that can come from the unchecked masses that use them.  I could probably write a whole book on this.  But I'm going to limit it to just one.  The one that annoys me the most.  The Tease.

If you're at all like me, then you know it well.  When someone posts something so juicy, so intriguing, so ripe with drama and melodrama, that you must know more.  But more is something you will never get.  For they have worded this post in such a way as to completely draw you in, but at the same time, leave out any details that might let you know what is actually going on.  For example, a post might read: 'Oh my god! I can't believe this has happened!!!!'  Intriguing, right?  They could have just been proposed to by their boyfriend, or their mom might have been hit by a car.  It could go either way.  The only thing we know for sure is that they would not post such a thing if they stubbed their toe or couldn't find the remote control.  No, one of your friends could be experiencing a life changing event, and you need to know what it is so that you can offer your help and support if the worst has happened, or your congratulations and well-wishes if the best has happened.

Worst yet, I'm not even the first to read this post.  Thirty other people have already responded.  Comments along the lines of 'What happened?', 'This sounds serious, what's going on?', etc…  But do you ever respond to these queries?  Do you leave a comment to explain the situation?  No.  Not a peep.  And this is where the confusion comes in.  If the matter is too serious to discuss on Facebook, why post it there in the first place?  If it really is serious, your real friends probably already know, so again, why post it?  If it's not serious at all, then really, you're just after the attention that comes from such a post, and are the worst kind of person.

Either way, I can't (fake) hang out with you (on the internet).

People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part IV)

I'm not a monster.  Please, try to keep that in mind as you read this.

Look, I like pets as much as the next person.  Obviously not as much as some people, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.  But, I like pets, plenty.  The problem is: I like pets.  Pets.  Not four legged friends that we pretend are people.  Pets are not people.  And that's a line that's become far too blurry in recent years.

Pets are great.  They make great companions.  They liven up the home.  They improve your quality of life.  It doesn't take long before pets are basically a part of the family.  I get it.  I really do.  I've loved many pets over the years.  And I've always looked back fondly at the time we spent together.

But there is a line.  And too many people cross it.  I'm talking about the outgoing voice mail (or answering machine, back in the day) where a family might add the dog to the list of names that is read out, as if someone might be calling to leave a message for "Jim, Jane, little Todd or Rover."  Or the Christmas card signed from everyone, including the cats.  Hilarious, right?  Everyone that hears that voicemail is going to crack right up and declare: "Leave a message for Rover? How deliciously absurd!" Or, "How could Mittens sign that Chrismas card? He must think he's people!"

Now, I'm no expert in comedy.  And why should I shit all over it, so long as the family is getting a smile or two out of doing it?  But I must.  It's like seeing a prop comic get out his trunk full of zany gags.  It's just a lowly form of humour, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to look down my nose at it.

And here's the problem: much like your newborn child, nobody likes your pet as much as you do. Nobody.  You've spend hours and days and years growing to love all the little quirks and nuances that make your pet unique and great.  I'm not try to discredit that.  I think it's a great part of life.  But stop being so determined that everyone must love your pet as much as you do.  They never will.  Sure, there's nothing wrong with bringing your dog to the lake with friends, or letting your cat sit on their lap and receive a good rub.  But knock it off with the Christmas cards and voicemail messages.  And for all that is good and holy, don't create Facebook accounts for your pets and then post messages as if they were the ones typing them. Bingo says: "I buried a bone in the back yard today." Really? Seek professional help.  Please.

Which brings me to the main topic of debate for this post.  Because up until now we've discussed some pretty harmless scenarios.  Sure, they might annoy, but big deal; some people are annoying.  We can learn to live with it.  But what about when it starts to affect that person's life?  What about when the vet bills start to creep into the thousands?  The ten thousands?  I know two separate cases in which people have spent over $6000 and $10,000 respectively on their dogs.  And, like I said at the start, I like to think I'm not a monster, but seriously people?  It's a pet. I'm not suggesting you don't love that pet.  But at the end of the day, it's just a pet.

So am I a monster?  Once you truly love a living thing, can you no longer assign a dollar value to it's life?  Or should people just accept that death is an inevitable part of having a pet.  And it's never easy, but eventually it will come to pass.  Sometimes your time with a pet ends quickly and suddenly, sometimes it lasts longer than you could have ever hoped.  Sometimes it's not fair, other times maybe you cling on to a pet that's in pain for a little while too long.  I'm not trying to deny or trivialize a person's love for their pet, but I still don't think people should be spending that kind of money (or worse yet, going into debt) just to squeeze a few more years of life out of a pet, whose life - for one reason or another - would probably have otherwise come to an end.

Look, their heart might be in the right place - attachment and devotion can be a tricky beast, after all. But at the end of the day, the head should make the final decision.  The logical decision.  If you think that's too cold and heartless, maybe you're right.   Maybe I am.  But this is simply my opinion, and these are the people I can't hang out with.  Maybe you can. 

Actually, saying I can't hang out with such a person is a bit of a stretch. Really, I just think we fall on different sides of the argument between a person that accepts a pet for what it is, and a person that is endlessly devoted to these animals, no matter what the cost.  That said, don't get me started on people that take their pets to therapists, or the fact that pets are allowed on planes nowadays.  Those people have definitely crossed the line.  The ever-increasingly blurred line that separates pet from person.  You can love a pet.  You can adore a pet.  You should never abuse a pet or mistreat it.  But if you treat a pet that much as though it were a human being - and often times, even better than you treat other human beings - then I'm sorry, but you're someone that I just can't hang out with.