Quick Post - Boxing

I am not a huge fan of boxing. My brother Andrew has followed the sport more closely, and his enthusiasm is my motivation to stay in touch with the sport. Otherwise, I would not say that I am heavily invested in boxing.

However, I have found myself admiring an athlete in boxing in Manny Pacquiao. Not only is he a fierce athlete and one of the best in the sport, but he also has character and a personality that I have not seen in another athlete. He has donated money to the point where he has put himself in financial trouble. He is a role model in his home country of the Philippines and has taken on many philanthropic initiatives. He fights to briefly escape the inevitable third-world poverty that takes place in his country. He also is a proclaimed Christian and is outspoken about his faith in the Lord. How can you not like this guy?

As a result, I find myself keeping up with this guy to know when his matchups are. He is fighting tonight and I plan to watch it.

What makes tonight more exciting than most is this: He is not only fighting tonight, but he is fighting who is considered the best boxer in the game right now, Floyd Mayweather. To make things even more interesting… I do not like Floyd. At all.

Many of you might be aware of the history that has led to the fight taking place today. Both camps have tried to make this happen for years and there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the details. Most people will think that this fight should have happened five years ago, but here we are. This is considered the biggest fight of the century. Everyone is talking about it. A lot of people will purchase the fight to watch it tonight, including myself.

Now, to get onto the point of why I'm writing this. I am not a sports analysts and I'm not an expert in this sport, so I am not going to write an article analyzing the fight. If I were to do that, I would make a fool out of myself and more than likely, copy and say something that has already been said.

When you start following boxing, you don't have teams that you cheer for. You don't have cities that you pull for. And you're not rooting for schools. You are cheering for individuals And not an entire team. Since this is the case, you are putting all of your stock into one person in a boxing fight and if they lose you run the risk of being heartbroken, especially in boxing as it takes on an all or nothing mentality. I really like Pacquiao, and I really do not want him to lose. But I will not obsess over it. Most people are dubbing this match as good vs. evil. Pacquiao comes from the Philippines where he is a member of the house of representatives, has taken on the role of pastor, and his actions identify him as an overall good person. Floyd, although considered right now as boxing’s greatest, flaunts his millions, has more supercars than I have fingers, and gambles an obscene amount of money. Floyd has also been charged with domestic battery. Five times.

Maybe you will cheer for Mayweather, because he is unbelievably good at his craft. You could cheer for him, because you think he is a “baller.” Maybe you will pull for him, because he has what everyone obsesses over… money. That’s not me. I do not care how good someone is at a sport, as I cannot support an athlete that leads a lifestyle like Floyd. Since I dislike Floyd, its possible for me to be grossly disappointed if the result does not go in favor of Pacquiao tonight. However, I have accepted all possible outcomes of this fight, and afterwards I will continue to admire Pacquiao the person, not Pacquiao the boxer and whether he defeats 47-0 Floyd Mayweather.

Its important to remember why we root for people and teams in sports. Is it the culture that we admire? Is it maybe the swagger they exude? Regardless of end results for our admired athletes, we should continue to pull for them and stick to why we started liking them in the first place. I will always admire athletes that help their communities, donate to those who are in need, and look to set a positive example for kids. Pacquiao is the epitome of what I root for and hope for in an athlete. If I were to idolize his record as a boxer and stop following him if he were to lose tonight, then my admirations for him would be fake and shallow. And at the end of the day, sports are supposed to be fun! Right?

But… Pacquiao will win tonight. He is going to put Floyd on the canvas in the 8th round.

Back to blogging and fancy record players

At this point you may be thinking that I am all talk. I said I was going to end mediocrity and I didn't. Well hold on, I feel like I have ended most of my mediocrity. There are some things, in my life, that have decreased in mediocrity and some things that have increased in mediocrity. Since my last blog post, I have decreased mediocrity by:


Getting a job.


Making more friends.


Learning to be more engaging (helps with making friends.)


Working out more often (could help make more friends, but I'm more concerned with my health.)


Cool socks. Seriously, I love socks. Especially ones that have argyle patterns.



Unfortunately, I have increased mediocrity in:



Keeping up with the Kardashians. I never really did, but who cares? I'm still not.
Coffee... I have been settling for Starbucks lately. What is wrong with me?

 (Don't label me, I love my coffee.)
Cooking my dinner. (Big & Little's, its so delicious.)
Watching House of Cards. (I need to catch up on that.)



If you think you have an understanding of what my blog is all about, then I am here to tell you that you are wrong. How can someone know what a blog is about when it's author does not even know?


I've changed my font to Helvetica in case you noticed. Also, I'm subtly being told that "Helvetica" is misspelled, when it is offered as a font in the menu above my writing pane. Why would you offer the font as an option and then passive-agreessively claim that it is spelled incorrectly? I'm spelling it correctly and I'm surprised "Blogger" has the gall to tell me otherwise. Makes sense to you? No? I agree, or, as Gen Y's say… samesies. 


That's also misspelled. 

What's happening right now is very similar to what happens with me on most Sunday mornings. I serve on the audio team for a small church in Chicago called Destination Church. When the worship band is finished rehearsing, it is my job to test the microphone on the front stage. In order to properly test the microphone, I am required to talk. So, when this begins, I typically talk about anything really. I will talk about the Cubs, sandwiches, what I did over the weekend, and maybe who I think will win the college football playoff.

I've also begun to enjoy things that have originality, such as antiques or other classic items. Sometimes, I find myself searching for images of old Camaros or Mustangs. I've also had a sudden desire to invest in a record player. Additionally, don't you miss the days when music was delivered to your ears from a Discman? No? Well, not samesies. Those bring me nostalgia, and that's my opinion.

Briefly, I want to go back to the record player. My brother owns a record player, and it may not sound quite like the high quality speakers, monitors, and headphones that we are used to in this age, but there is nothing that sounds quite like it. The sound that comes from a record player has character that simply cannot be duplicated, which places it in a league of its own and makes it immune to any modern day competition. You just can't replicate it.

In case you hadn't noticed, what I do to test the stage microphone at my church is exactly what I do with my blog. If you have made it this far, bless your heart.

Let's move away from the rambling, as I actually have a topic I want to discuss. Recently, a movie promoted by Sony pictures, The Interview, was recently cancelled by Sony and will not be showing in theaters in the United States. It has been in production for quite some time, and was ready to be released in theaters. If you have not heard of the movie, I will give you a quick breakdown of its plot. I did originally intend for this blog to be about movie reviews...


The Interview stars Seth Rogen and James Franco as a producer and actor on a TV show, respectively. They are trying to find more purpose in their show when they find out that Kim-Jong un, the leader of North Korea, wishes to be interviewed. Now if you do happen to live in a cave, Kim-Jong un is actually the leader of North Korea... in real life. Anyways, Rogen and Franco's characters are all of a sudden visited by central intelligence and nominated to take on a mission to assassinate the North Korean leader. 

This is a movie about assassinating a real human being. 


Upon seeing the trailer for this movie, I was shocked that anyone would dare make a movie like this. How on earth does a movie studio have the guts to create a film based on killing a leader of a country? It almost sounds like you would need written permission to embark on an operation like this. However, I have a funny, gut feeling that Jong-un, or Kim, or however you say it, would not give said "permission" for a movie where he is the antagonist. 

In light of The Interview, I can't seem to shake the fact that we, as a society, have created films that are blurring the lines between what is acceptable and what is not. Movies are becoming more intense, more violent, and more sexual. The shock and awe factor is becoming the norm and movie makers' are relying on this as the main factor to drive ticket sales. I personally do not enjoy films that rely on shock and awe to gain appeal, as I consider it amateur and lacking the attributes that makes a film great. 


As a result of films becoming more intense, more violent, and more sexual, the benchmark is continually rising for what we, as film goers, can handle and expect. Take Terminator (1984), for example. Terminator was extremely dark and violent for its time, and I have heard claims, from some who saw it in theaters, that it pushed the envelope for violence in movies and was more terrifying than any film during that time. However, Terminator just simply is not as scary today as it was 30 years ago, due to our desensitized tastes.

From the way I see it, the movie selection these days is similar to the Billboard Top 20 list of popular songs. I currently do not have the Internet, so feel free to fact check me on that and if it is actually the “Top 20” or maybe “Top 10.” Don’t worry, I am not ashamed. However, popular music today is mostly loud, obnoxious, dub step, and filled with a lot of oomsah oomsah. 

The Interview, as funny as it looks, is a film that is an embodiment of what movies are becoming. People are adapting and growing theatrical anti-bodies that are yielding them unaffected and unfazed by films that are not more intense, more violent, and more sexual than their predecessors. We have now gotten to the point that, in order to please the public and make a funny movie, some thought it would be OK to make a movie about assassinating a real person. 

To put it simply, films have become less like record players and more like oomsah oomsah.

Now, I have been known to have an opinion that bounces around a little before settling down. I will admit, I have shared with friends that I thought it was hilarious that they made a movie about Kim Jong-un. I personally disagree with kind of leadership that is in North Korea and am appalled by the human rights issues that are currently arise there. I thought it was funny that Sony was making a movie about taking out Kim Jong-un and hoped that it would send a message to North Korea that it is not right to treat people the way they do. The idea of two hilarious actors in Rogen and Franco being the main characters in a film like this sounded hilarious.

However, I have begun to believe that a movie like The Interview should not have been created in the first place. Seth Rogen and James Franco together look absolutely hilarious, but the topic of the movie is too controversial and encourages more movies to come to push the intensity envelope even further. To make matters more controversial, The Interview was pegged to be released on Christmas Day. 

I wish there would be a stretch of films that do not push the intensity envelope, but the quality envelope. There is nothing that gives me more excitement than a movie that is of true quality (when it comes to movies.) I wish there were was an increase in well-thought plots, character development, twists, and realism. I'm tired of pointless explosions, F-bombs, sex scenes, and blood/gore. Its dumb, stupid, and unimpressive, because anyone can do it. When a movie maker relies on these aspects to fuel their movie, what truly makes them skilled in their craft? 

In the end, I still think The Interview looks funny. But there are some tweaks that could have been done to make the movie less controversial, yet still retain its full level of hilarity. That is a conversation, or a blog post, for another day. Unfortunately, since the movie is already finished and set to be released, it is a little too late. Not releasing the movie is an act of taking away free speech, which is unconstitutional. Now, Sony Pictures has found itself in a bit of a mess to say the least.


Here are my final thoughts that I want to add. Films were created to be a form of art and a source of entertainment. They were meant to take someone on a journey that they normally would not face in their lifetime, and to experience a story about a character who is involved in turmoil, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, romance, beauty, and so much more. Films, when at their very best, have the ability to bring realism and touch the hearts of those who dare go on this journey. Whether it's as cosmic as an exploration through space that transcends the boundaries that we are used to, or as simple as a love story that may be comfortingly, deeply true to life, the experience is meant to be an enjoyment and a pleasure. No matter what emotion is brought out in us.

At the end of the day, I believe we have to admit it. There is nothing quite like a record player.

A Not So New Idea

Hello blog, the mediocrity ends now. Ever since the new year began, I've been trying to limit the word mediocre from my lifestyle. And blog... you're next.

There are so many things on my mind. One thing that really is irking me today are my glasses. Why, after deliberate attempts to keep the lenses clean, does dirt and grime make exhausting and ultimately successful attempts to land on my lenses? WHY? Don't you have anything else to do? Like, go under a couch? Rest upon a coffee table? Or better yet, a dust pan?? To all the dirt and grime out there: nobody likes you. Seriously. Don't believe me? Watch Contagion.

You don't even have a personality. You don't have character, nor do you have the ability to love or hate. Oh dirt and grime, you might be thinking "Wow, that Alex character is such a jerk." Unfortunately, everything I have been saying are TRUE FACTS! Go do something with your life, dirt and grime, instead of being lazy and attaching yourself to random objects. Its pathetic.

Michelle and I had a friend move in with us from our church. She's been looking for a new apartment, and during the waiting period she's been staying with us. She also brought two cats to accompany our hyperactive little cat, Ivy, whom I've mentioned in previous blog posts. Both are boy cats whose names are Mogley and Nila. Mogley and I have yet to hit things off, but he is roughly 18 pounds of pure manly cat. Mogley and Ivy seem to get along well, as they play fight and seem to not have a problem with eating from each others food dishes.

The other day, I saw Ivy, sitting under a chair, swatting at Mogley's wagging tail, as he was sitting on top of said chair. Despite the dynamic of their friendship, Ivy was only using Mogley at this moment as a mere means of entertainment, by batting at his tail. For a moment, I wondered if Mogley was at all offended by this. But then I remembered that they're just cats, they do this all the time. However, that didn't stop me from analyzing the situation, and recalled a video I recently saw by Daniel Pink. Its about a 10-minute long video, but I enjoyed it very much and you can check it out at the end of this blog.

In modern day business, we see a widely used practice of rewarding good behavior. Obvious right? A manager works above an employee and pays them to do their job. When the employee displays substantial performance that is above and beyond expectations, it can result in a bonus, raise, or promotion. You may be wondering where I am going with this, and why I am bringing up such an obvious and apparent aspect of modern day business practice.

Ever have someone tell you "you don't know me," in a very aggressive manner? Well, to be honest, most of the time that person is right. This can especially be the case between the dynamic relationship of manager and employee. People work, because something motivates them. Individuals labor through the nine-to-five to get what is in it for them. Managers, in their position, are given the task to see that the employees they supervise stay ticking. But more often than not, they do not know what it is that truly motivates their employees.

The video by Daniel Pink shows something quite stunning. Studies were done that take simple ideas and tested those ideas at the Massachusetts Institute of  Technology. Those simple ideas were the following: If you reward something, you get more of the behavior you want, and if you punish something, you get less of the behavior you want. From there, they took a group of students and offered them each a specific level of reward from three different levels, had them take part in a series of challenges specific to those rewards.

Now this is what is stunning. We assume that the higher reward yielded a higher performance, right? Well, when it came to mechanical and physical tasks that was true. High reward, in a majority of cases, let to the highest level of performance. However, when it came down to tasks that called for simple cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance! Those who were offered the lowest reward performed better than those who were offered the highest reward. What?

So, do we simply throw out our old beliefs? Everything we learned in school and business classes is wrong? How is this possible?

This study was testing further, this time in a more professional setting. At a company in India, employees were offered two weeks, one month, or two months worth of salary as a reward for their performance. They took on similar responsibilities, but were offered a specific reward for those tasks. In the end, those who gained two weeks performed no worse than those who got one month, and those who were offered two months for top performance ultimately failed. Employees who had a chance to earn two months of paid salary upfront failed on their task, but those who were offered only 2 weeks performed well. In the end, rewarding something did not lead to the desired behavior of good performance, but less of it!

Talk about contrary to logical economics.

So now, when it comes to complicated tasks that require deep thinking, monetary motivators do not work. In many situations, money even serves to be detrimental to businesses, as executives who make money as their main motivator constantly look for new, sometimes illegal, ways of obtaining more of it. As a result, those who fall under ultimately suffer. Companies that only care about monetary reward do not have a stake in the satisfaction of their customers, and ultimately are willing to sacrifice that, resulting in poor customer service for example.

But not all hope is lost. Many managers in workplace settings hope to get employees motivated enough that their main motivation is no longer money. Once that happens, it is said that productivity, efficiency, and overall charisma knows no bounds.

My father once told me that "if you love what you do at work, you will never work a single day in your life." When we go in the office, waiting for the next pay check as our main motivator, there is a disconnect between what we do at work and what we hold passionately in our lives. If we give people the opportunity to take on their passions and show the world their true skills, the results that can about have astonishing potential. Further along in the study, experts discovered that when there is purpose and meaning to the work that is being done, passion and motivation flourish.

Given our recovering economy, many of us are in job positions that we cannot leave. We do not have the capacity or the money to pursue our dreams and passions. People out there want to start their own business, but do not have the resources to build. People want to travel around the world, but cannot afford the plane ticket.

But that ultimately doesn't stop us from enjoying our passions. Most of us don't get paid to go to the movies. Most of us don't get paid to run in a marathon. We don't get paid for spending time with our families. A majority of us don't get paid for painting, writing, reading, crafting, filming, or doing anything that are our true passions. Why?!

Because its fun. In a world like ours, we may not have the ability to make our passions our profession. But that does not mean we should not pursue. And we should not lose our passions, as they can definitely help during our free time when we are not working the grueling 9 to 5.

Steve Jobs wanted to put a ding in the universe. Mark Zuckerberg wanted to make the world come together through socialization. Skype wanted to be disruptive, but make the world a better place. BMW wanted to revolutionize the meaning of affordable luxury in an automobile. All of these ideas had a major purpose. And if we can find a purpose to what we do in our lives and be professionals to what we love, than money no longer needs to be our main motivator.

Now doesn't that sound good?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

-Alex

Kim Kardash and a Stache - The Demise of the NBA

Basketball. It is the first sport that I truly loved. I remember the day, back in 2nd grade, when my father first introduced me to the sport. He taught me how to shoot in my backyard. For the next 15 years, I did not stop shooting.

I also remember the first player I looked up to, and it wasn't Michael Jordan. I have a hard time looking up to a historic athlete who decided to don a mustache similar to that of Adolf Hitler.

Michael Jordan. Yikes.

Seriously? Maybe, just maybe, I would also have more respect for him if he didn't always blitzkrieg his way to local stripclubs.

But I'm not here to talk about Air Hitler.

The first player I looked up to? Hakeen Olajuwon. One of the most versatile centers to ever play the game. He was a threat on both ends of the court, was a shot blocking freak, and donned the dream shake. Oh the dream shake.

Hakeen Olajuwon

MJ, when it comes to the dream shake, thinks of something completely different and not suitable to younger audiences. Haven't I made that clear already? But Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon, with his dream shake, found a way to fake a basketball shot twice in one move to immobilize a defender and finish by executing a simple lay-up. Those were the beautiful days of professional basketball. Basketball role models were everywhere, with the likes of Charles Barkley, Penny Hardaway, Shaq, David Robertson, and more. Movies about basketball were coming out, like Space Jam, For the Love of the Game, and Air Bud! The NBA was filled with talented athletes that cared only about playing the game they loved. They dedicated their life to the game of basketball.

So what's going on in the NBA now you ask? It doesn't exist at the moment. Why do you ask? Well let me tell you.

First, for those who don't know how the business of sports works specifically, here's a quick summary. Sports associations are made up of two parties: players and owners. There is a certain amount of revenue that is generated by the league and both parties have to decide how they want to split the related income. They also have to mutually agree on a set of rules that involve contracts, salary caps, etc. When the players and owners agree on a set of rules, they both sign whats called a Collective Bargaining Agreement, or CBA, which usually has a life of 10 years before it expires and a new CBA must be agreed upon.

The CBA, first signed in 2005, proved to be difficult for the owners, as the gap between small-market and large-market teams was widened, substantial losses were reported, and stadium workers were being laid off. By 2011, the NBA was posting a loss of $300 million per year. Basketball related income was split in clear favor of the players at 57-43 percent. Naturally, one would think that its time for a change.

The obvious solution: give the players less money. Its simple. Players get their paychecks and get to buy expensive houses, Ferrari's, helicopters, etc. Owners get their paychecks, which are large, but then have to invest that in their team. However, players, before negotiations, wanted more money.

What?

After initial talks, players offered, over 10 years, to go from 57% to 54.5%, which forks over about $500 million.

So that's supposed to cover the $300 million loss per year over the next 10 years, right?

This eventually ended in a lockout, where the owners prevent the players from meeting as a team and using the NBA facilities. Talks between the owners and players continued to the point where they disagreed between one or two percentage points. The players refused to play basketball if they were going to get less than 52% of revenue. Soon, they were given a final offer of 51%, which could grow to 52%, and even lightened up on the salary cap issues that upset the players. But the players rejected the offer, because it was presented like an ultimatum. Now, the players are taking the issue to court and soon filing an anti-trust lawsuit against the owners, and may potentially cancel not only this NBA season, but the next as well.

Hopefully, you're as disgusted as I am, considering during the last several paragraphs there was no mention of love for the game of basketball, because, quite frankly, there isn't any. It's as simple as this: if the players truly loved the game of basketball, they would've accepted the deal before this got out of hand. Instead, they are fighting over the fact that their average salaries will drop from $5.4 million to $5 million.

If I may, let's talk briefly about why we don't like Kim Kardashian and her other Kardashian minions. She's thinks mostly about herself, is quite shallow, and seems to lack basic human morality. We are upset, lately, because she abused the sanctity of marriage, by pocketing nearly $17 million and managed to be married for simply three months to Chris Humphries, ironically an NBA player. NBA players, not by contrast, but at a much higher magnitude, do the same as Kim does, with the exception of abusing the sanctity of marriage obviously. NBA players think all about themselves, obviously are shallow, and are abusing the game of basketball by taking the matter to court in an attempt to settle a suit with the hopes of getting more money. Sorry, I did not get the memo that said $5 million wasn't enough...

By simple logic, I would rather watch the Kardashians stir in their own first-world problems then watch an NBA basketball game.

The game I loved for nearly two decades has been tarnished by the collapse of the NBA. Much like the collapse of Rome, the NBA has reached the point of being a failed state. Its that same too big to fail mentality that dooms establishments that think that they are so special that they need the preferential treatment from society. We live in a world where hard working individuals struggle every day with putting food on the table. Experienced teachers who live paycheck to paycheck are being laid off. The average income of suburban households in Uganda is around $600 per year. So when Derek Fisher, point guard and president of the players union, says that the players are sorry for the fans and cannot wait to get back on the court, I don't believe him. Derek, you think going from an average salary of $5.4-5 million isn't fair? Take your Rolls-Royce to a local public school and tell a senior teacher who just had their salary slashed that its not fair. You think the players union is being treated like plantation workers? Take a flight in your G4 to visit an actual plantation worker and tell them its not fair, and they will show you how hard you really have to work for money.

And owners, you are just as bad. Owners spend unnecessary amounts of money to old players who have little skill. Owners are the ones who locked out the players, which also locked out those with stadium jobs. Parking attendants, vendors, customer service associates, trainers, security guards, cameramen, janitors, and stadium attendants will be out of a job. Linda, a friend of mine, who works at the Target Center for Timberwolves games, no longer has a job. So, I'm sorry I'm not sorry that I turn a deaf ear to the pathetic and cowardly rants of NBA players and owners. How about you realize that you live a very healthy and wealthy lifestyle first and get back to work, just like the harder working individuals who have their careers in jeopardy because you are complaining about losing about 5-10% of your multi-million dollar contract.

If this blog post comes across as too emotional, I do apologize. I love to write and love to tell friends and family what is on my mind, but I never want to rant about my issues. I definitely did that here, but I have been meaning to get my thoughts on this topic off my chest.

Dikembe Mutombo

Dikembe Mutombo, a star center for the Denver Nuggets and the Houston Rockets in the 90s, wagged his finger back and forth whenever he blocked someones shot. He probably thought "you should be ashamed for yourself to think you could score on me."

I know, somewhere, Dikembe is shamed of the NBA, wagging his finger again.

Back and forth.



Alex

Its OK to Microwave your Coffee

If I am consistent about anything in my life, which now convincingly is not updating my blog, its consuming delicious coffee in the morning. No I am not one of those give-me-my-coffee-now or I will burn-this-house-down kind of people. If I don't get it, I simply will not have the happiness born from its roasty goodness, nor will I have the energy to prevent me from missing a beat or two throughout the day.

I have not always been in love with the intricate process of crafting and the delightful imbibing a solid cup of Joe. Less than a year ago, to me coffee was synonymous with what ends up in the cleaning bucket after a grade school teacher washes a chalk-ridden blackboard. It was also similar to what you would hypothetically get if you were so possessed to combine shredded cardboard and tap water. By the way, if you have ever made such a beverage and enjoyed it... its not a beverage, you are sick, and are in need of help.

1 year ago...

cof·fee noun 
1 substance formed from the rapid grinding of cardboard mixed with water from sewage runoff:
I'll take a tall cardboard wat... sorry, I mean coffee.
2 a drink surely to have no taste at all
The absence of taste in this coffee is tremendous!


Present...

cof·fee noun | cough-ee |
1 a drink derived from a rich, flavorful blend of roasted tropical beans
I'll take a coffee, the best thing on the menu of course!
2 a concoction of flavorful aromas and delicious plethoras of caffeinated bliss
3 a drink, its consumption of which can yield tremendous and infinite powers
I drink coffee, therefore, I am better than you.


Michelle, my lovely wife scoffs at my present definition, but according to number three, she doesn't know what she is talking about.

My journey into the world of coffee was not gradual by any means. It was as rapid as a Discovery shuttle's journey from Earth to space.

Back in February, while at the Chicago Tribune, you would find me doing market research and experimenting with coffee, using my trustworthy, puny $15 Mr. Coffee from Target. I worked with a guy named Ed Ney, whom, unbeknownst to me at the time, was, by his terms, a coffee snob. So when I, the noisy little research intern, tell him that we can make coffee in the morning with my little coffee contraption, I think I'm right at home in this "coffee club," while he is questioning my membership and more considering my candidacy as a lunatic.

Ed was the reason why I ducked around the introductory stages of coffee and space shuttled right into drinking the "good stuff," which to me back then still tasted like "bad stuff."

He showed me how to make coffee using a French press. By the way, a French press is not as French as some of us think. It was created and patented by a Milanese designer named Atillio Calimani, whom is very much Italian. The only thing French about a French press is the fact that the press was first used within the country borderlines of France. Whoop de doo.

A "French" press is also called cafetiere, press pot, and coffee plunger, a term they use in South Africa. The last one would seem fitting with my previous attitude, where I would consider using a toilet plunger to yield the same, if not better, result.

The process Ed used to create coffee was very intricate, using multiple devices, that more or less turned our boring break room into an interesting, attention grabbing laboratory.

The first step is to begin with whole bean coffee. If you use finely ground coffee, you will still get coffee, but it will look more like Turkish coffee, which pretty much sludge. If that's your thing, more power to you.

The next step is to grind the beans with a coffee grinder to a point where you want coarse chunks instead of powder. I have a Cuisinart 15-setting burr-mill grinder that has various settings depending how fine or course you wish to grind your coffee. It is quite loud, but this is a necessary sacrifice that I have gotten used to. It actually has become quite entertaining because when I turn it on, my cat, being quite skittish, jumps a foot in the air and runs away into the living room, hitting a wall or tripping over something in the process.

In the press canister, I mix the grinds with boiling water and the brewing process begins, looking like a science experiment. Using boiling water was the most popular method of making coffee until the 1930s, where the filtrated method swiftly took its place at the top. The idea is to boil water and immediately combine the grounds to begin the brewing process with the water at around 205 degrees Fahrenheit, which releases aromatic oils from the beans. Any hotter, and you'll get a bitter taste.  Any colder, and it will feel like you are drinking bean water thats hot.  Not preferable.

Let the process take place for four minutes, and finally, press the filter down the canister to separate the grounds from the water to create... coffee! Enjoy its roasty deliciousness.

Also, you want to know what goes great with a cup of French pressed coffee? A Macbook!

Oh, now to the topic of my blog post. Many coffee enthusiasts (snobs) say that putting your coffee in the microwave is up there with putting ketchup on a Chicago-style hot dog. If your coffee is cold, want to know what I say? Do it! What is your alternative? Are you seriously going to dump out all that hard work and effort you put in to make such a surreal and eloquent brew? I didn't think so. Yes, you will lose a little bit of taste, but who cares!

A little love from the microwave never hurt anybody. Moral of the story.

And that coffee makes you a better person.  BOOM, roasted! (Literally.)

Alex

Greetings!

Hello, I would like to give a shout out to my first follower!!!  My parents...

But that, by no means, invigorates my insecurity with not having many friends. 

Anyways... I will have more followers soon.  Hopefully.

There is something I would like to discuss and I hope to get a hold of a bunch of people on this.  If you watched yesterdays Twins game you noticed that Kevin Slowey was practically painting the corners with his stellar pitching.  While spending most of the season trying to find his rhythm, Slowey looked he had top-notch stuff yesterday afternoon against the A's.  By the 7th inning he was pitching a no-hitter.

Fantastic right?  Well I wish I could tell you that Kevin went on to pitch a no-hitter, because that would be awesome.

Unfortunately, Ron, our manager, took Slowey out in the 7th inning, preventing him from achieving a no-hitter.  John Rausch then came into the game in the 8th and let in two runs to blow the combined no-hitter, however the Twins still won.  Gardenhire received a massive amount of boo's after his decision to take out Slowey, but even he said he felt awful about doing so.  This reasoning behind his decision was this: He feared that by keeping Slowey in the game, given his recent missed start due to tendinitis, would hurt him in the long run and potentially risk him not being healthy when the playoffs come around.  He would have loved to keep him in the game, but he couldn't do it.  He would've done the same thing 1,000 times he says.

Sound off!  What are your thoughts on Gardenhire's decision?  Do you agree or disagree?

First Post: Thoughts

Hey to anyone who is reading this!  This is my first post so we will see how it goes. 

I am quite lucky to have the Twins in town playing the White Sox tonight.  Maybe if that streak of luck continues they can get out of this series at least a game ahead of them in the Central D.  If you haven't been keeping up much, the Twins and White Sox have been going back and forth constantly all season fighting for first place in the division.  The Twins pulled ahead in the early bit of the season, but as usual, the Sox had their freakish, mid-season run and went ahead.  And what'ya know, the Twins and White Sox are tied with the same record going into tonights game.  Figures. 

Scott Baker is pitching tonight after doing a stand-up job last week against the Rays.  He was in line to get the win last week, when Matt Capps could not finish off the Rays, as they came back in the 9th to take away Baker's should-have-been well earned victory.  If you get a chance, check out the game tonight.  I may be going, but that is completely dependent on the climate.

I hope to add some movie reviews on here soon.  There are a few movies I am looking forward to seeing that have landed in the theaters recently.  If you're looking for a comedy, check out The Other Guys.  Will Ferrell, who in my opinion has seen better movie days, teams up with Mark Wahlberg as two detectives who are overshadowed by their superiors played by Samual Jackson and Dwayne Johnson.  Yet another comic book adaptation is coming out this weekend in Scott Pilgrim Versus The World, where Michael Cera plays as Scott Pilgrim, who falls for a girl who works for Amazon, but can only earn her heart if he can challenge and defeat her seven ex-boyfriends in comic book, mixed in with some video game styled fighting.  Here are some other movie recommendations I have if you are looking for something to watch!

In Theaters
Kids Movies
 - Toy Story 3 (4/4)
 - Despicable Me (3.5/4)
PG - PG-13
 - Inception (4/4) *Highly Recommended
R
 - Dinner for Schmucks (3/4)
 - Predators (2.5/4)

Thats all for now!