I heard a radio announcer excitedly declare the other day that pitchers and catchers were reporting south for spring training.
I didn't share his enthusiasm. Now, don't get me wrong -- I still love sports almost as much as I did when I was a kid growing up.
I love the pure athleticism of *the* Troy Polamalu interception this season (y'know, the one where he scooped the ball from an impossibly low height). I loved the Ben Rothliesberger quick kick against the Ravens (and the Matt Cassell kick against the Bills that I blogged about). I love the strategy that goes into the Lowell Devils' decision to yank their goalie when down 5-4 late in the 3rd, keep the goalie pulled even after giving up another goal, and then using their de facto power play to score two goals with less than 30 seconds left in regulation today against the Portland Pirates today at Tsongas.
But I'm also noticing that as more years go by, my perspective on what a Super Bowl or a World Series really means changes.
When I was seven years old, the Mets were playing the Dodgers in the NLCS. Growing up a Mets fan in northern New Jersey (remember, I'm a New Englander by conscious choice, though not by birthright), I thought this series to be among the most important things in the world at the time.
An older and wiser family friend counseled me pre-emptively (the Mets would go on to lose that Series to the eventual World Series champs) by telling me this: "The World Series really isn't that big of a deal. If it were, they wouldn't play it every year."
When I was seven, with two whole years' professional sports rooting under my belt, this made no sense to me.
Now, I'd like to go back to that guy and shake his hand. I finally get it.
Every year, someone will win the World Series. Al Michaels will call it a monumental, historical achievement. Champagne bottles will be sprayed around a locker room amidst cries of "We're the greatest," and "No one said we could do it."
And then players will retreat to their winter homes, a few months will go by, and then all of a sudden pitchers and catchers will be reporting while someone un-originally laments where all the time has gone and can-you-believe-it's-already-February? The Grapefruit and Cactus Leagues will come and go, and then will come Opening Day and equally un-original observations about can-you-believe-it's-already-April?
When I started watching sports, I didn't really know the difference between a 21 year-old and a 41 year-old. I just knew all the players (college and pro) were a lot bigger and older than I was. Then, when I came out of a four-year cocoon of non-sport-following, I realized that I was probably older than most collegiate athletes, and even some of the professional ones. Now, at 28, another important miletone has hit -- I'm now older than most of the guys playing all four of the major professional sports. By geographical accident of placement in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I even got to bump into a few before they were pros. A mystique which once existed -- and an importance placed on the playing field wins and losses of people who neither know me or care about me -- has faded with time.
I can still marvel at the great plays, I can still love the strategy of double steals, quick kicks, and pulled goals. I can still have a great time going to Tsongas and LeLacheur with neighbors, girlfriend, and cousins.
But I'm not too piqued one way or the other about pitchers and catchers reporting. In fact, at the exact moment I heard that, I was on my to pick up someone who actually matters to me from work on Bridge Street so we could head to Boston and have actual dinner in an actual restaurant.
I'll probably catch some of this year's World Series. If I've got good company to watch it with, it might make a fun, interesting backdrop to shared times together over good food, good drink, and good conversation. Either way, I'll probably pick my *horse* to root for, though it won't mean a thing 10 minutes, let alone 10 years, after the game.
But that's only if I've got nothing better to do.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Ramadi Dispatch, Take Two
Reader: This is a second update from Capt. Wise about his deployment to ar-Ramadi with 6th Marines. Although he recently began this overseas tour, he was just assigned to a staff job in Tampa, FL, so will soon be re-deploying back to the U.S. for a much-needed break from the past few years' deployment cycle. He writes:
I saw many reports about the Iraqi elections on the US side, and for most unattentive readers, they think it's over, time to get us out. But that's not the end of the story. We'll soon have the results of the "Special Needs Voters" - those voters who couldn't vote during the main election due to their responsibilities (Iraqi Security Forces), the elderly, or handicapped. This vote is critical in Al Anbar. The top two parties in the main vote are separated by less than 1% of the vote total, and the special needs votes can tip this to one side or the other. Many of the tribal figures have publically stated that they will attack the Iraqi Islamic Party (the incumbent party since they were the only ones that ran in 05), but hopefully we have calmed things down.
Now the parties are doing what political parties do in parlimentary systems - start forming coalitions. The main objective of the parties right now is to make sure they maintain their influence, and have followed the old addage - politics makes strange bedfellows. We have anti-coalition forces parties aligning with our more friendly candidates, etc. What does it mean to all of us here? Don't know yet, because the election results will be finalized on the 23rd. Political pundits would have fun trying to predict the match ups here, and would likely get it wrong. If I've learned one thing about Iraqis, it's that they have their own logic. Just because it wouldn't make sense for us, doesn't mean it doesn't make perfect sense for them.
Until the results come out, I'll be back to doing what I do - going to meetings, and looking at PowerPoints.
I saw many reports about the Iraqi elections on the US side, and for most unattentive readers, they think it's over, time to get us out. But that's not the end of the story. We'll soon have the results of the "Special Needs Voters" - those voters who couldn't vote during the main election due to their responsibilities (Iraqi Security Forces), the elderly, or handicapped. This vote is critical in Al Anbar. The top two parties in the main vote are separated by less than 1% of the vote total, and the special needs votes can tip this to one side or the other. Many of the tribal figures have publically stated that they will attack the Iraqi Islamic Party (the incumbent party since they were the only ones that ran in 05), but hopefully we have calmed things down.
Now the parties are doing what political parties do in parlimentary systems - start forming coalitions. The main objective of the parties right now is to make sure they maintain their influence, and have followed the old addage - politics makes strange bedfellows. We have anti-coalition forces parties aligning with our more friendly candidates, etc. What does it mean to all of us here? Don't know yet, because the election results will be finalized on the 23rd. Political pundits would have fun trying to predict the match ups here, and would likely get it wrong. If I've learned one thing about Iraqis, it's that they have their own logic. Just because it wouldn't make sense for us, doesn't mean it doesn't make perfect sense for them.
Until the results come out, I'll be back to doing what I do - going to meetings, and looking at PowerPoints.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Show and Tell: The Art of the Narrative
I bumped into one of my neighbors near the elevator the other day and he mentioned that he and his girlfriend had some photography that would be debuting at the Revolving Museum on Thursday the 12th. I'm thinking this will be an interesting exhibit to check out, so it's definitely made its way onto my calendar, barring any flat tires or other unexpected maladies.
Here's a link with the vital information http://www.revolvingmuseum.org/Calendar/index.html
Here's a link with the vital information http://www.revolvingmuseum.org/Calendar/index.html
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Not Just Beanie Babies and Soccer Balls..
"I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law." -- Matthew 5:17
Cliff Krieger, author of Right-Side-of-Lowell (linked just to your right), recently sent me this article: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20081116.aspx. The article is titled "The Trust Gap" and it speaks to some of the problems that come from living under totalitarian regimes. These problems, of course, are well-documented, particularly in the aftermath of said regimes when Sociologists and Political Scientists can come check things out.
Of course, it shouldn't be hard to understand why it's hard to trust your neighbor when you're living in some type of Orwellian nightmare. If you're living in constant fear of the proverbial three a.m. knock on the door and a one-way ticket to the Lubyanka, you might have an extra special sort of propensity not to have your neighbors over for dinner, as one little slip-up to the wrong person might set off some *denunciations* that would take you away from those you love.
In Khidhir Hamza's "The Bombmaker," a prominent Iraqi scientist who was shanghaid into working on a developmental nuclear bomb project by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, but ultimately escaped to freedom via Turkey, paints an excellent picture of the massive, state-wide jail cell created by one man's thirty-year rule.
Afghanistan is an entirely different animal, of course, but it has its own experiences of imposed Communism, seemingly-endless war, and then the particularly ruthless brand of totalitarianism imposed by the Taliban in 1996.
So, as you might imagine, a society that collectively suffers from PTSD because of the extreme daily stress imposed by an inability to trust anyone isn't just going to turn around overnight. The effect it might have on an individual is in some ways irreversible -- just ask any Khmer Rouge survivor to explain their feelings towards police, government, etc., even in a separate continent thousands of miles away with a different language and society.
So, in steps the U.S. I believe that by the actions begun in October 2001 and March 2003, respectively, we have a major commitment to "seeing through" the transition of Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, towards one where openness and rule of law become the norm rather than the exception. This is going to take a lot of time and patience on our part.
But here's the good news -- there's definitely a way forward. In Robert Gates' recent Foreign Affairs article "A Balanced Strategy" (which, by the way, has been referenced both here and on Right-Side-of-Lowell more than once), SECDEF came out to boldly state, "The United States needs a military whose ability to kick down the door is matched by its ability to clean up the mess and even rebuild the house afterward."
That's why Cliff sent the article over to me in the first place -- besides the many forms of *soft power* and media influence that factor in to the transformation (and are probably underrated or underappreciated for their power to do so, but thanks Chandler and Monica), some of the major implementers of the long-term strategy will be Army Civil Affairs personnel -- what your author hopes to be doing soon for the 26th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (Camp Curtis Guild, Reading, MA).
So, of course, this won't mean jamming the pointy end of an M-4 in someone's face and telling him to start reading Tocqueville and Locke in a tea house on the Tigris. But it also means a lot more than just handing out Beanie Babies and soccer balls (as some who dismissively view Civil Affairs sometimes seem to think).
It's going to mean subtly influencing these societies in a way that steers them down the road in a direction towards openness, transparency, and, yes, trust of one's neighbors. We'll need to do it in a cooperative, multi-national sort of way -- a big tent is always best for generating *buy-in.* And we'll need to bear in mind everything T.E. Lawrence said about why their "tolerable" is better than our "perfect."
Obviously, there will be costs involved. But the payoffs will be tremendous, even if they won't be understandable in a pomp-and-circumstance-let's-put-on-our-Sunday best-and-sign-something-on-the-deck-of-the-mighty-Missouri.
Because never in the history of history have two liberal democracies ever gone to war with one another.
Cliff Krieger, author of Right-Side-of-Lowell (linked just to your right), recently sent me this article: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20081116.aspx. The article is titled "The Trust Gap" and it speaks to some of the problems that come from living under totalitarian regimes. These problems, of course, are well-documented, particularly in the aftermath of said regimes when Sociologists and Political Scientists can come check things out.
Of course, it shouldn't be hard to understand why it's hard to trust your neighbor when you're living in some type of Orwellian nightmare. If you're living in constant fear of the proverbial three a.m. knock on the door and a one-way ticket to the Lubyanka, you might have an extra special sort of propensity not to have your neighbors over for dinner, as one little slip-up to the wrong person might set off some *denunciations* that would take you away from those you love.
In Khidhir Hamza's "The Bombmaker," a prominent Iraqi scientist who was shanghaid into working on a developmental nuclear bomb project by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, but ultimately escaped to freedom via Turkey, paints an excellent picture of the massive, state-wide jail cell created by one man's thirty-year rule.
Afghanistan is an entirely different animal, of course, but it has its own experiences of imposed Communism, seemingly-endless war, and then the particularly ruthless brand of totalitarianism imposed by the Taliban in 1996.
So, as you might imagine, a society that collectively suffers from PTSD because of the extreme daily stress imposed by an inability to trust anyone isn't just going to turn around overnight. The effect it might have on an individual is in some ways irreversible -- just ask any Khmer Rouge survivor to explain their feelings towards police, government, etc., even in a separate continent thousands of miles away with a different language and society.
So, in steps the U.S. I believe that by the actions begun in October 2001 and March 2003, respectively, we have a major commitment to "seeing through" the transition of Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, towards one where openness and rule of law become the norm rather than the exception. This is going to take a lot of time and patience on our part.
But here's the good news -- there's definitely a way forward. In Robert Gates' recent Foreign Affairs article "A Balanced Strategy" (which, by the way, has been referenced both here and on Right-Side-of-Lowell more than once), SECDEF came out to boldly state, "The United States needs a military whose ability to kick down the door is matched by its ability to clean up the mess and even rebuild the house afterward."
That's why Cliff sent the article over to me in the first place -- besides the many forms of *soft power* and media influence that factor in to the transformation (and are probably underrated or underappreciated for their power to do so, but thanks Chandler and Monica), some of the major implementers of the long-term strategy will be Army Civil Affairs personnel -- what your author hopes to be doing soon for the 26th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (Camp Curtis Guild, Reading, MA).
So, of course, this won't mean jamming the pointy end of an M-4 in someone's face and telling him to start reading Tocqueville and Locke in a tea house on the Tigris. But it also means a lot more than just handing out Beanie Babies and soccer balls (as some who dismissively view Civil Affairs sometimes seem to think).
It's going to mean subtly influencing these societies in a way that steers them down the road in a direction towards openness, transparency, and, yes, trust of one's neighbors. We'll need to do it in a cooperative, multi-national sort of way -- a big tent is always best for generating *buy-in.* And we'll need to bear in mind everything T.E. Lawrence said about why their "tolerable" is better than our "perfect."
Obviously, there will be costs involved. But the payoffs will be tremendous, even if they won't be understandable in a pomp-and-circumstance-let's-put-on-our-Sunday best-and-sign-something-on-the-deck-of-the-mighty-Missouri.
Because never in the history of history have two liberal democracies ever gone to war with one another.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
YouTube and Political Speech -- A Trend?
Two really significant domestic political items caught my eye last month because I think they might be a harbinger of a bigger trend to come: The use of YouTube as a way for candidates to cheaply and widely make major campaign announcements, decisions, policy proposals, etc. without having to rely on paid television advertisements or grovel for radio/TV airtime.
The first was the Boston mayoral race where Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty first announced his bid for office on YouTube (he then took it back and then re-took that back, which is quite confusing but not the bigger point here).
The second comes out of Virginia, where Attorney General Bob McDonnell announced his resignation from that office for the purpose of full-time campaigning for governor via YouTube.
If you combine the increasing use of things like YouTube by everyday citizens with the fact that fewer people are subject to TV commercials (thanks to things like DVDs, TiVO, and now the gaggle of legitimate and not-so-legitimate Internet sites that let you watch your favorite shows online), what might happen is a political trend where big money (and, therefore the two big parties) become less relevant.
I admit, that's a kind of shooting-from-the-hip brand of analysis. I would imagine things like posters, billboards, buttons, t-shirts, and the like still eat up a large amount of dough. But I would also bet that money otherwise spent on a 30-second spot during primetime TV could buy a whole lot of paraphernalia (or, better yet, not have to be raised at all).
All I know is that I expect to see more and more usage of free Internet media like Facebook and YouTube in the coming years, which may have the power to level the playing field somewhat in terms of who is able to make a viable run for political office and whose voice can be heard.
The first was the Boston mayoral race where Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty first announced his bid for office on YouTube (he then took it back and then re-took that back, which is quite confusing but not the bigger point here).
The second comes out of Virginia, where Attorney General Bob McDonnell announced his resignation from that office for the purpose of full-time campaigning for governor via YouTube.
If you combine the increasing use of things like YouTube by everyday citizens with the fact that fewer people are subject to TV commercials (thanks to things like DVDs, TiVO, and now the gaggle of legitimate and not-so-legitimate Internet sites that let you watch your favorite shows online), what might happen is a political trend where big money (and, therefore the two big parties) become less relevant.
I admit, that's a kind of shooting-from-the-hip brand of analysis. I would imagine things like posters, billboards, buttons, t-shirts, and the like still eat up a large amount of dough. But I would also bet that money otherwise spent on a 30-second spot during primetime TV could buy a whole lot of paraphernalia (or, better yet, not have to be raised at all).
All I know is that I expect to see more and more usage of free Internet media like Facebook and YouTube in the coming years, which may have the power to level the playing field somewhat in terms of who is able to make a viable run for political office and whose voice can be heard.
Monday, February 2, 2009
My Predictable Response to Michael Phelps and Tom Daschle
I was really surprised to hear the recent revelations about Michael Phelps and Tom Daschle.
Not surprised that they *did it.* Not particularly judgmental about the behavior itself, either. But honestly, in both cases, I'm surprised that more precautions weren't taken -- either by the principal himself or by one of his PR people -- to protect him from himself.
Doesn't Michael Phelps have an agent or handlers constantly reminding him that just about anything he does could instantly be captured to be lodged forever in Facebook or YouTube infamy? And doesn't Tom Daschle have an accountant whose main job in life is to make sure that the Honorable Gentleman files properly, and on time? I know my own taxes this year are going to be a bit complicated (what with the home purchase and all) and I'm paranoid enough to try to farm out some outside help.
I noticed in both Phelps statements -- following the DUI arrest, and again following the picture revelations, he started off the prepared statement by stating his age, with the obvious implication that it should somehow serve as a mitigating factor.
That doesn't really work for me. If 23 year-olds can fly multi-million dollar aircraft, drive nuclear submarines, and walk the beat on Haifa Street, they're clearly making *big-boy* decisions in my book. But even on a basic level, many 23 year-olds have mortgages, car payments, families of their own, and all the other accoutrements that come with responsible adulthood. Shoot, many 19 year-olds (Phelps' age at time of DUI arrest) deal with all of that stuff.
Again, just want to wrap this up by re-iterating that it's not my place to judge how Michael Phelps spends his free time, or how Tom Daschle might have misunderstood something about his consulting business.
I'll save those calls for companies with endorsements and the U.S. Senate.
But in the meantime, it just strikes me as incredibly stupid that both have jeopardized their careers over things that seem as if they could have been prevented with a little bit of foresight -- not just on their part, but also on the part of those who now stand to lose so much because of today's headlines.
Not surprised that they *did it.* Not particularly judgmental about the behavior itself, either. But honestly, in both cases, I'm surprised that more precautions weren't taken -- either by the principal himself or by one of his PR people -- to protect him from himself.
Doesn't Michael Phelps have an agent or handlers constantly reminding him that just about anything he does could instantly be captured to be lodged forever in Facebook or YouTube infamy? And doesn't Tom Daschle have an accountant whose main job in life is to make sure that the Honorable Gentleman files properly, and on time? I know my own taxes this year are going to be a bit complicated (what with the home purchase and all) and I'm paranoid enough to try to farm out some outside help.
I noticed in both Phelps statements -- following the DUI arrest, and again following the picture revelations, he started off the prepared statement by stating his age, with the obvious implication that it should somehow serve as a mitigating factor.
That doesn't really work for me. If 23 year-olds can fly multi-million dollar aircraft, drive nuclear submarines, and walk the beat on Haifa Street, they're clearly making *big-boy* decisions in my book. But even on a basic level, many 23 year-olds have mortgages, car payments, families of their own, and all the other accoutrements that come with responsible adulthood. Shoot, many 19 year-olds (Phelps' age at time of DUI arrest) deal with all of that stuff.
Again, just want to wrap this up by re-iterating that it's not my place to judge how Michael Phelps spends his free time, or how Tom Daschle might have misunderstood something about his consulting business.
I'll save those calls for companies with endorsements and the U.S. Senate.
But in the meantime, it just strikes me as incredibly stupid that both have jeopardized their careers over things that seem as if they could have been prevented with a little bit of foresight -- not just on their part, but also on the part of those who now stand to lose so much because of today's headlines.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Comedy at the Brewery -- A Mixed Review
So last night we took in a comedy show at the Brewery Exchange...It was $15 for two hours' worth of laughs (or, in some cases, groans) and the next go-around will be Saturday, February 21 at 8 p.m.
There were four amateur (and very amateur-ish) comedians, in addition to the host, in the run-up to the headliner, Steve Bjork. For the most part, the *opening sets* weren't great, and some of the jokes that landed with a thud were only made worse by the comedians' responses to their jokes bombing. (Ooohhh, I guess you guys didn't get that one...you're going to have to look that one up on Google at home, and then you'll be like, 'Ohh...that's what he meant').
Note to anyone thinking about performing stand-up: Don't constantly make real-time references to how well or how poorly your jokes are being received by the audience. If you'll notice, none of the greats do that in their performances. It's not by accident.
Among the not-so memorable lines last night were Sam Rodriguez' "What's the deal with this cold weather? I thought there was global warming" which he tried to then follow up with a strained connection between the winter weather and the idea that perhaps it was indeed the "cold day in hell" that white Americans swore would happen before they'd *let* a non-white person win the Presidency. Besides not really making any sense or being particularly funny, that joke especially didn't work in front of an audience made up almost entirely of white people who had presumably voted for Obama. Accordingly, their displeasure was made known.
Rick Cormier's amusing brand of vulgarity was a bit of a bright spot. His presentation was good, his set-ups were well done, and he seemed to have a knack for *going there* time and again after you thought he might've been headed somewhere else.
Another one of the comics had a frat-boy style humor that worked a bit at times (one good gag was about how a guy in Seattle was photographed cross-country skiing to work, thereby 'ruining it' for all his co-workers who planned to use the blizzard as an excuse for a 'snow day'). Unfortunately, he took the "Steve from Accounting" line here and dragged it out for about 5 minutes, which was about 4:30 longer than it was funny.
The best comic of the night, in terms of content, delivery, and performance, was definitely Steve Bjork. As the headliner, that might be expected -- you could tell he had been in plenty more performances than most of the others had, and it showed in the smoothness of his delivery. He had some funny scenes he painted about social conventions (the idea of facing 'the wrong way' in a crowded elevator was great), he did the stock marriage humor stuff but pulled it off okay, and moved around well between topics without notes or other obvious cues. One disappointment for me was his "If men had breasts, nothing would ever get done..." bit, which was funny the first time I had ever heard it...in junior high school. I honestly would've preferred a 'toilet seat up' or 'airline food' joke in its stead. In the end, Bjork redeemed himself from that by showing his flexibility and spontaneity, wonderfully tearing apart a guy who was calling a cab on his cell phone DURING THE PERFORMANCE and being so loud that everyone there, including Mr. Bjork, could hear the guy's address being given over the phone.
Bottom Line: If you are a fan of comedy in and of itself, I think this show is worth going to. Compared to the cost of a movie, a Devils game, two games of bowling, or just about anything else you might do in the fifteen-dollar neighborhood, I'd even say it's *worth it,* esp. if you're with people who understand your real entertainment for the night might come from laughing at -- not necessarily with -- some of the talent on stage.
There were four amateur (and very amateur-ish) comedians, in addition to the host, in the run-up to the headliner, Steve Bjork. For the most part, the *opening sets* weren't great, and some of the jokes that landed with a thud were only made worse by the comedians' responses to their jokes bombing. (Ooohhh, I guess you guys didn't get that one...you're going to have to look that one up on Google at home, and then you'll be like, 'Ohh...that's what he meant').
Note to anyone thinking about performing stand-up: Don't constantly make real-time references to how well or how poorly your jokes are being received by the audience. If you'll notice, none of the greats do that in their performances. It's not by accident.
Among the not-so memorable lines last night were Sam Rodriguez' "What's the deal with this cold weather? I thought there was global warming" which he tried to then follow up with a strained connection between the winter weather and the idea that perhaps it was indeed the "cold day in hell" that white Americans swore would happen before they'd *let* a non-white person win the Presidency. Besides not really making any sense or being particularly funny, that joke especially didn't work in front of an audience made up almost entirely of white people who had presumably voted for Obama. Accordingly, their displeasure was made known.
Rick Cormier's amusing brand of vulgarity was a bit of a bright spot. His presentation was good, his set-ups were well done, and he seemed to have a knack for *going there* time and again after you thought he might've been headed somewhere else.
Another one of the comics had a frat-boy style humor that worked a bit at times (one good gag was about how a guy in Seattle was photographed cross-country skiing to work, thereby 'ruining it' for all his co-workers who planned to use the blizzard as an excuse for a 'snow day'). Unfortunately, he took the "Steve from Accounting" line here and dragged it out for about 5 minutes, which was about 4:30 longer than it was funny.
The best comic of the night, in terms of content, delivery, and performance, was definitely Steve Bjork. As the headliner, that might be expected -- you could tell he had been in plenty more performances than most of the others had, and it showed in the smoothness of his delivery. He had some funny scenes he painted about social conventions (the idea of facing 'the wrong way' in a crowded elevator was great), he did the stock marriage humor stuff but pulled it off okay, and moved around well between topics without notes or other obvious cues. One disappointment for me was his "If men had breasts, nothing would ever get done..." bit, which was funny the first time I had ever heard it...in junior high school. I honestly would've preferred a 'toilet seat up' or 'airline food' joke in its stead. In the end, Bjork redeemed himself from that by showing his flexibility and spontaneity, wonderfully tearing apart a guy who was calling a cab on his cell phone DURING THE PERFORMANCE and being so loud that everyone there, including Mr. Bjork, could hear the guy's address being given over the phone.
Bottom Line: If you are a fan of comedy in and of itself, I think this show is worth going to. Compared to the cost of a movie, a Devils game, two games of bowling, or just about anything else you might do in the fifteen-dollar neighborhood, I'd even say it's *worth it,* esp. if you're with people who understand your real entertainment for the night might come from laughing at -- not necessarily with -- some of the talent on stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)