So I'm working now with mlive. I've posted a few things via their blog, so if you want to check them out, I've included the link.
http://blog.mlive.com/textmessage/
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Sneaky Famous
So a friend and I were discussing the band Fastball. Remember them. They had that one hit way back in the late 1990s, The Way. If you still aren't sure, I've brought visual proof.
My friend told me that that was the only song by Fastball she knew. I said it wasn't. I said she had probably heard two or three songs by the Texas-based band. I rattled off some songs, she downloaded them and, surprise surprise, she knew the songs.
We then began to talk about how Fastball had been able to accomplish such a feat. They are mostly forgotten, but they have a catalog that a high percent of the population would recognize.
They have become sneaky famous.
Sneaky famous happens when someone who accomplishes a recognizable feat without really getting the attention of the public. Sneaky famous is usually reserved for authors and inventors. Authors, while their names may be recognizable, are mostly just more faces in the crowd. If John Grisham stood in a lineup with other middle-age men, I wouldn't be able to pick him out. However, most educated people in America know what he does and many of them probably have read something by him.
Same with Facebook "founder" Mark Zuckerberg, who is known by anyone who spends too much time on Facebook. However, Zuckerberg probably doesn't get mauled walking through a grocery store.
Becoming sneaky famous is much more difficult as musicians. Example: One-hit wonders.
Now I am not old enough to remember days without the Internet or 24-hour cable news coverage, so I don't know a time when someone could become famous without being plastered across television, newspapers and Web sites. I assume that sneaky famous was much easier to accomplish about 40 or 50 years ago, but now it has become an art form, a skill.
I think this has become my goal in life. I want to do something in life that gets my name recognized, but I would be OK without the constant pressure of keeping up appearances.
Someday I hope to be famous, and I hope that you won't even realize it.
My friend told me that that was the only song by Fastball she knew. I said it wasn't. I said she had probably heard two or three songs by the Texas-based band. I rattled off some songs, she downloaded them and, surprise surprise, she knew the songs.
We then began to talk about how Fastball had been able to accomplish such a feat. They are mostly forgotten, but they have a catalog that a high percent of the population would recognize.
They have become sneaky famous.
Sneaky famous happens when someone who accomplishes a recognizable feat without really getting the attention of the public. Sneaky famous is usually reserved for authors and inventors. Authors, while their names may be recognizable, are mostly just more faces in the crowd. If John Grisham stood in a lineup with other middle-age men, I wouldn't be able to pick him out. However, most educated people in America know what he does and many of them probably have read something by him.
Same with Facebook "founder" Mark Zuckerberg, who is known by anyone who spends too much time on Facebook. However, Zuckerberg probably doesn't get mauled walking through a grocery store.
Becoming sneaky famous is much more difficult as musicians. Example: One-hit wonders.
Now I am not old enough to remember days without the Internet or 24-hour cable news coverage, so I don't know a time when someone could become famous without being plastered across television, newspapers and Web sites. I assume that sneaky famous was much easier to accomplish about 40 or 50 years ago, but now it has become an art form, a skill.
I think this has become my goal in life. I want to do something in life that gets my name recognized, but I would be OK without the constant pressure of keeping up appearances.
Someday I hope to be famous, and I hope that you won't even realize it.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Rod Allen takes on Japan
It has been a while since I posted but hopefully I'll have more up this weekend. For now, you get Tigers broadcaster Rod Allen.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Think before you type
As a product of the information and social networking age, I am well aware of the different networking tools at the tips of our finger tips. I have a Twitter account and a Facebook account, and quite often, I find myself on message boards.
Now I understand that you get what you pay for, and by going on these free message boards, you get all the trouble that comes along with that. You find a lack of self-editing. Bad grammar, terrible spelling and poor word choices. Those problems, while they don't reflect well on the author, can be forgiven.
But the real sin is the fact that people go on these boards and say inflammatory things they would never consider saying to a person's face.
It was not funny when a 13 year old does it, so now it comes across as pathetic when a person in their 20s, 30s or 40s does it.
As a writer who hopes to one day work in the newspaper industry, I can tell those who do this not only bring down their credibility, but they bring down the credibility of everyone else who comments on the Web site.
Now I'm not asking everyone to become friends and hold hands, rather I'm just asking for people who choose to speak a differing opinion to think out a response longer than just saying, "Your dum and you sux."
Please just think before you post.
Now I understand that you get what you pay for, and by going on these free message boards, you get all the trouble that comes along with that. You find a lack of self-editing. Bad grammar, terrible spelling and poor word choices. Those problems, while they don't reflect well on the author, can be forgiven.
But the real sin is the fact that people go on these boards and say inflammatory things they would never consider saying to a person's face.
It was not funny when a 13 year old does it, so now it comes across as pathetic when a person in their 20s, 30s or 40s does it.
As a writer who hopes to one day work in the newspaper industry, I can tell those who do this not only bring down their credibility, but they bring down the credibility of everyone else who comments on the Web site.
Now I'm not asking everyone to become friends and hold hands, rather I'm just asking for people who choose to speak a differing opinion to think out a response longer than just saying, "Your dum and you sux."
Please just think before you post.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Community on a baseball level
One of the greatest things about sports is the way it can connect fans from all sorts of different backgrounds. Black or white, young or old, poor or rich, we all have teams that we want to root for, and sports becomes the equalizer for fans.
Being a Detroit Tigers fan, I have connected with other Tigers fans through Bless You Boys. It has been great. I have been able to share my joys and pains with the fans who have the same thoughts.
Sports really isn't just about the player who play it, rather it also encompasses the fans who watch. Being able to commiserate with other fans who are feeling what I feel helps me work through some of the problems (such as the Tigers' bullpen) and really helps people work through other problems they have.
For sports fans out there, I would suggest finding a sports blog that speaks to you, it becomes a great way to meet other fans and work through your team's problems.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Anatomy of a Nickname
Nicknames are a funny thing. Sometimes you want one, but you just can't get people to call you by the name. Othertimes, you do something embarrassing and you are branded for the rest of your life.
I don't feel like my name is ripe for parody, but over the years, I have acquired a plethora of pseudonymns, so here are a few of my thoughts on those names that can be so hard to shake.
Nicknames can spring out of imaginative friends. My name is Reichard, pronounced with German emphasis. Someone I worked with thought that it might have a French sound, simillar to French-Canadian hockey great Maurice Richard. Well Mr. Richard was given the nickname "rocket," and with my name sounding like Richard, I was quickly branded "the rocket." In an act of sheer coincidence, my brother also was called "rocket" by his friends in college.
An aside, for some reason, it seems like famous people are given nicknames at a much higher rate than everyone else. It appears that everyone is looking to give sports stars a nickname. Take Miguel Cabrera, the Tiger's first baseman. There have been threads devoted to coming up with a nickname for the man. Sid the Kid, Sir Charles, the Mule, etc.
But it doesn't end with rebranding of famous hockey players, sometimes nicknames come out of neccessity. Working at a place with two people with the same name left the rest of us in a pickel. Everytime someone would say their names, both would respond. So nicknames became needed. Well, one was in the middle of growing a moustache, so he became 'Stache while the other had a last name containing the words Hitch. When the two combined, it sounds like a crime fighting duo the likes of the world has never seen.
Other times, if you do something memorable, you're going to be immortalized in your nickname. It could be as simple as being the person who always falls asleep first, so they become Doze. Or perhaps, after a night of drinking, you run around the block to speed up the alcohol process, then you get a name like Sprint. The best way to avoid nicknames you are embarrassed of is to not appear to be bothered by them. The only reason people are calling you that name is because it invokes some sort of reaction. If you pretend you aren't bothered by it, people aren't going to keep calling you it.
I've lived through my share of nicknames, some have stuck, some haven't, some have been flattering, others have been borderline mean. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow and stick one out.
I don't feel like my name is ripe for parody, but over the years, I have acquired a plethora of pseudonymns, so here are a few of my thoughts on those names that can be so hard to shake.
Nicknames can spring out of imaginative friends. My name is Reichard, pronounced with German emphasis. Someone I worked with thought that it might have a French sound, simillar to French-Canadian hockey great Maurice Richard. Well Mr. Richard was given the nickname "rocket," and with my name sounding like Richard, I was quickly branded "the rocket." In an act of sheer coincidence, my brother also was called "rocket" by his friends in college.
An aside, for some reason, it seems like famous people are given nicknames at a much higher rate than everyone else. It appears that everyone is looking to give sports stars a nickname. Take Miguel Cabrera, the Tiger's first baseman. There have been threads devoted to coming up with a nickname for the man. Sid the Kid, Sir Charles, the Mule, etc.
But it doesn't end with rebranding of famous hockey players, sometimes nicknames come out of neccessity. Working at a place with two people with the same name left the rest of us in a pickel. Everytime someone would say their names, both would respond. So nicknames became needed. Well, one was in the middle of growing a moustache, so he became 'Stache while the other had a last name containing the words Hitch. When the two combined, it sounds like a crime fighting duo the likes of the world has never seen.
Other times, if you do something memorable, you're going to be immortalized in your nickname. It could be as simple as being the person who always falls asleep first, so they become Doze. Or perhaps, after a night of drinking, you run around the block to speed up the alcohol process, then you get a name like Sprint. The best way to avoid nicknames you are embarrassed of is to not appear to be bothered by them. The only reason people are calling you that name is because it invokes some sort of reaction. If you pretend you aren't bothered by it, people aren't going to keep calling you it.
I've lived through my share of nicknames, some have stuck, some haven't, some have been flattering, others have been borderline mean. Sometimes you just have to go with the flow and stick one out.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Movie Review: Star Trek
Lacking a real alternative to the evening, I, along with five friends, ventured out to see the new Star Trek movie last night. I have never seen a Star Trek movie, nor have I ever sat down and watched a full episode of any of the series, so I had no expectations going in.
That's not true. I did have expectations. I thought it probably would be some big budget movie that I couldn't get into because I had never gotten into any of the other movies or television series. On the other hand, I had heard that the movie was getting pretty good reviews, so I allowed myself to be dragged along to score some brownie points with the friends.
As the movie opens, we see the doomed crew of the USS Kelvin, including James father George Kirk sending his pregnant wife in an escape ship while he sacrifices himself to make sure his family escaped safely. Then we are introduced to James T. Krik, the wisecracking youngster who doesn't take crap from anyone and plays by his own rules. I'm glad to say Chris Pine's portryal of Kirk was in line with Shatner, but not as over-the-top as the man who created Kirk.
While Kirk's storyline was entertaining, the real drama came out of Spock's storyline. I'm not going to dive too much into the plot, but Spock's storyline drives the film.
At first Kirk and Spock are on opposing sides, carrying a certain amount of disdain for each other. Over time, a respect grows and by the end of the movie, a friendship is budding.
The movie runs over two hours, but a constant stream of action and special effects means the movie doesn't drag much. The movie has its share of plot holes and unbelievable coincidences (like Kirk being marooned on the very planet he needs to be), but they can be forgiven in the name of entertainment.
Sure, I'm not a fan of the television series, so I don't know how far they diverged from the series. I could understand if true fanboys are upset because they took liberties with the original.
In the end, the acting was decent, the action was well-paced and I didn't have to be a diehard; these things allowed me to be pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the film.
That's not true. I did have expectations. I thought it probably would be some big budget movie that I couldn't get into because I had never gotten into any of the other movies or television series. On the other hand, I had heard that the movie was getting pretty good reviews, so I allowed myself to be dragged along to score some brownie points with the friends.
As the movie opens, we see the doomed crew of the USS Kelvin, including James father George Kirk sending his pregnant wife in an escape ship while he sacrifices himself to make sure his family escaped safely. Then we are introduced to James T. Krik, the wisecracking youngster who doesn't take crap from anyone and plays by his own rules. I'm glad to say Chris Pine's portryal of Kirk was in line with Shatner, but not as over-the-top as the man who created Kirk.
While Kirk's storyline was entertaining, the real drama came out of Spock's storyline. I'm not going to dive too much into the plot, but Spock's storyline drives the film.
At first Kirk and Spock are on opposing sides, carrying a certain amount of disdain for each other. Over time, a respect grows and by the end of the movie, a friendship is budding.
The movie runs over two hours, but a constant stream of action and special effects means the movie doesn't drag much. The movie has its share of plot holes and unbelievable coincidences (like Kirk being marooned on the very planet he needs to be), but they can be forgiven in the name of entertainment.
Sure, I'm not a fan of the television series, so I don't know how far they diverged from the series. I could understand if true fanboys are upset because they took liberties with the original.
In the end, the acting was decent, the action was well-paced and I didn't have to be a diehard; these things allowed me to be pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the film.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Turning Inwards
At the beginning of this current conflict overseas, I bought in. I thought it was the burden of the American public to "liberate" foreign people from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussain.
Over time (not to mention a liberal education at Western Michigan University), I began to see that liberation of oppressed was not the number one goal of the administration. Rather, I see the invasion of Iraq as an attempt to create an ally in the Middle East among the Islamic dominated countries. The best case scenario was the quick formation of a stable democracy in Iraq. Looking back, it was foolish to think this was even possible.
In fact, the first three to four years of the war most likely could not have gone any worse. There was a fundamental shift in American policy in 2006 that placed an increased value on the well being of the public the troops were fighting over. When this happened, America started to turn the tides of the war. For a more in-depth look at this change, I would suggest reading The Gamble. I really enjoyed the admissions of mistakes made in the book by active and recently retired officers; those admission gave the book a sense of legitimacy.
What does bother me is the attitude taken towards the war since the recent economic crisis. Prior to the economic downturn, the major negative news story had to be the war. However, once the bubble burst in the economy, suddenly all coverage of Iraq became secondary. The media coverage may have been biased, but it provided a check on the progress of the war. If George Bush would have realized that the economy caused the focus to shift off of the war, maybe he would have tried to tank the economy sooner.
I understand why this shift has to happen. Domestic policies are much more important because they affect us. There are tangible effects to the economic crisis, such as my father losing his job or I, as a recent college graduate, really has to search for even the most common of jobs ('Would you like fries with that?' suddenly does not sound so bad). I get it, I'm really concerned about the future of the economy as well.
That being said, people are dying and have no clue where they are going to live the next day over in Iraq. People in the States are losing their bonuses due to greed and may have to penny pinch over the next few years. It is not the same.
Worse yet, the economy will bounce back, whether that is a year or two, but there doesn't seem to be a simple way to secure victory over the next two or three years. If the US leaves now, the government will collapse and sectarian violence will engulf the entire region. Add to that the fact that major players in the region hold nuclear weapons now, and this is not something Americans can afford to ignore. On the other hand, does anyone really want the United States to be there for the next 15 years?
I'm not saying economy stuff shouldn't be reported or even lead off the evening news, but Americans also need to be concerned about the land where we are sending troops to fight a war. Failure to talk about the war will not make it go away.
Over time (not to mention a liberal education at Western Michigan University), I began to see that liberation of oppressed was not the number one goal of the administration. Rather, I see the invasion of Iraq as an attempt to create an ally in the Middle East among the Islamic dominated countries. The best case scenario was the quick formation of a stable democracy in Iraq. Looking back, it was foolish to think this was even possible.
In fact, the first three to four years of the war most likely could not have gone any worse. There was a fundamental shift in American policy in 2006 that placed an increased value on the well being of the public the troops were fighting over. When this happened, America started to turn the tides of the war. For a more in-depth look at this change, I would suggest reading The Gamble. I really enjoyed the admissions of mistakes made in the book by active and recently retired officers; those admission gave the book a sense of legitimacy.
What does bother me is the attitude taken towards the war since the recent economic crisis. Prior to the economic downturn, the major negative news story had to be the war. However, once the bubble burst in the economy, suddenly all coverage of Iraq became secondary. The media coverage may have been biased, but it provided a check on the progress of the war. If George Bush would have realized that the economy caused the focus to shift off of the war, maybe he would have tried to tank the economy sooner.
I understand why this shift has to happen. Domestic policies are much more important because they affect us. There are tangible effects to the economic crisis, such as my father losing his job or I, as a recent college graduate, really has to search for even the most common of jobs ('Would you like fries with that?' suddenly does not sound so bad). I get it, I'm really concerned about the future of the economy as well.
That being said, people are dying and have no clue where they are going to live the next day over in Iraq. People in the States are losing their bonuses due to greed and may have to penny pinch over the next few years. It is not the same.
Worse yet, the economy will bounce back, whether that is a year or two, but there doesn't seem to be a simple way to secure victory over the next two or three years. If the US leaves now, the government will collapse and sectarian violence will engulf the entire region. Add to that the fact that major players in the region hold nuclear weapons now, and this is not something Americans can afford to ignore. On the other hand, does anyone really want the United States to be there for the next 15 years?
I'm not saying economy stuff shouldn't be reported or even lead off the evening news, but Americans also need to be concerned about the land where we are sending troops to fight a war. Failure to talk about the war will not make it go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
