The rules of The Jukebox Game

Music, ,

In another lifetime* when I hung out in bars all the time, I came up with this idea** of The Jukebox Game. Here’s how it works:

You and a friend or friends choose a dollar amount. I’d suggest between two and four dollars per player.

Player 1 puts in a dollar and chooses the allotted number of songs. He or she is awarded points based on the reactions of strangers in the bar to the songs played (friends in your drinking party do not count). Points are awarded as follows:

Head bobbing, foot tapping, hand clapping: 1 point

Singing along with lyrics (lip-sync only): 2 points

Spontaneous affirmations of musical selection: (“This song rules!”  “Bon Jovi, fuck yeah!”): 3 points

Singing along with lyrics (out loud): 5 points per group of patrons (2 bonus points if people throw their arms around each other and sway)

Note: If a group of three people starts singing you only get five points, not 15, but if three people sitting by themselves all start singing separately, that’s 15. Same with the bonus: each swaying group is two bonus points. If two groups of three people start singing and swaying that’s 5 + 5  + 2 + 2. If two strangers start singing and swaying, it’s still 5 + 5 + 2 + 2.

Actual dancing: 10 points per person (including groups but you can only collect if the bar does not have an actual dance floor; points awarded for spontaneous dancing only)

After player 1’s songs are finished, player 2 puts a dollar into the jukebox and tallies up the points based on the patrons’ reactions to the songs played. Additional players follow the same pattern. No player may repeat a song played by a previous player, but artists may be repeated. Play alternates until the chosen dollar amount is spent by all players. The person with the most points wins.

Why alternate dollars? Simple. This rule prevents latter players from acquiring an advantage over earlier players because the patrons in the bar and significantly more inebriated. If player 1 played five dollars worth of songs, we’re talking around an hour of drinking before player 2 starts.  An hour more of inebriation generally produces more singing and dancing.

Now, when I came up with this game Internet jukeboxes weren’t a thing. Internet jukeboxes completely change the nature of this game. With a regular jukebox, everyone has the same limited inventory to work with so it’s a challenge. Playing with an Internet jukebox is like everyone playing the same game but with cheat codes on. Play the game right and use a real jukebox with finite selections.

Lastly, I have never actually played this game. I just created the point totals. No idea if it’s actually a workable game. If you play it over the weekend, I’d love to hear how it goes.

* Roughly 2004-2008
** Like I said, this was another lifetime ago so this may have been the result of a barroom conversation I had with a few people but I’m the only one who bothered to write down the rules. If you were present during the genesis of this game – it was probably during a Chicagoist staff happy hour – and contributed to it, let me know.

Abigail picks her name

Fatherhood, , ,

“So, how is Abby?”
“Er…Abigail.”
“Oh, yes, Abigail.”

I’ve been having some variation on this conversation with people since our daughter was born. When I say “people,” I mean everyone from her grandparents to friends to co-workers.

Erin and I made it pretty clear to people that Abigail was, well, Abigail. We never called her Abby, either casually or formally, in verbal or written form. Yet somehow people always wanted to shorten her name to Abby.

There’s nothing wrong with Abby, mind you. It’s just that it wasn’t the name we chose for her. Nicknames or shortened names should be something organic, a way of referring to someone after you get to know his or her personality. Abigail had plenty of personality from about six months on. Maybe that informed us calling her AG, short for Abigail Grace, because it stuck. Just sort of happened in the way that nicknames do. It seemed to fit.

If she was going to be Abby she could decide that for herself.

We had an idea in our heads, Erin and I, about our daughter. Abigail is Abigail because of Abigail Adams, the First Lady to the second president of the United States. Abigail Adams was a tough broad in tough times. Any father should want the same for his daughter.

If I’m being honest, Abigail is also Abigail because of Abigail Bartlet, the First Lady to President Bartlet on The West Wing, one of our favorite shows. She’s tough, too, and a doctor and can make the word “jackass” sound like poetry. Sure, she’s fictional. Everyone has flaws. *

And finally, Abigail is Abigail because that’s just what seemed to fit our hopes and ideas of who she would be. Abigail Grace. Toughness meets divinity.

You have an idea in your head about how your kid is supposed to be, you see.

Then one day you’re watching one of your child’s favorite shows with her and the lead character breaks the fourth wall, as characters of children’s shows are apt to do, looks out of the TV and says “And you: say your name!” And your daughter says “Ab-beeee!”

Abby.

Of course, then you realize your daughter’s other favorite show is Sesame Street, a show with a flying fairy who she adores. A flying fairy named…Abby. She’s learning her alphabet now, too, and really mastered the first two letters. A..B. AB. Ay-bee. Abby.

Since then, the answer to “What’s your name?” is “Abby.”

Our ideas about how much control we had over our child’s mind ended before Abigail was even born so this development should not come as a surprise.

She’s got even more personality now. She’s as quick with a “Yay!” when you do something she likes as she is with a “Nay!” when it’s something she doesn’t. (Seriously, it’s not “yes” and “no,” it’s “yay” and “nay.”)

She knows a little about who she is and so she knows her name. Abby.

Maybe it sticks. Maybe she decides as a teenager that she prefers Abigail. Maybe as an adult she likes A.G. Smith because it sounds ungendered and she likes to keep people on their toes.

For now though, as far as she’s concerned, she’s Abby.

So long as she sticks with toughness meets divinity, she should be fine.

* Just because someone else will point it out if I don’t: President Bartlet always called his wife “Abbey.”

Things I don’t understand

Politics, , , ,

There are a number of arguments you can make against marriage equality or “gay marriage.” None of them are persuasive to me for reasons beyond the nature of this post. Regardless of intent, all are countered by the simple understanding that we cannot deny basic rights to one group of people if we extend them to others.

Yet the arguments make a kind of sense to me. Their basis is usually in fear and that’s a universal emotion, even if I don’t agree with the roots of that fear – usually an effort to hold on to some imagined way of life (the “traditional marriage” argument) that didn’t exist before and doesn’t exist now. I may disagree with the intent but I can at least get my head around it.

The argument Cardinal George made in a letter this week? I don’t get it. It’s not based in fear. It’s based in a kind of logic. A deeply flawed logic with truck-sized holes in it.

“Civil laws that establish ‘same sex marriage’ create a legal fiction,” George wrote in a letter sent to priests today. “The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible.”

What does nature tell us is impossible? Reporter Manya A. Brachear explains:

According to the tradition of natural law, every human being must seek a fundamental “good” that corresponds to the natural order to flourish. Natural-law proponents say heterosexual intercourse between a married man and a woman serves two intertwined good purposes: to procreate and to express a deep, abiding love.

In fairness to Cardinal George, those aren’t his words even if the crux of the argument is. Here’s what I don’t understand:

Where does this leave couples who cannot have children due to a biological reason? If they cannot procreate, does their marriage run counter to natural law? Or if couples feel called to adoption – and as someone with just a passing familiarity of the domestic and international processes, make no mistake, it is a calling – is their marriage in opposition to the natural law Cardinal George feels is so important? What about couples who have a deep, abiding love but feel children are not possible in their marriage due to financial or other lifestyle concerns? Why isn’t Cardinal George trying to oppose these marriages? Is it because in Cardinal George’s mind he imagines they’re capable of both procreation and love and perhaps God will guide them to procreation by changing the nature of their minds or healing their biological concerns? Odd that the Cardinal views man’s mental or biological free will – a gift from God – with such contempt.

On a completely separate topic is this piece from New York magazine on what happened when the California State Teachers Retirement System, a public pension find, let a private equity firm called Cerberus Capital Management know it was less than happy with the firm’s ownership of a certain gun manufacturer:

Cerberus, it emerged, owns the company that makes the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle used in the Sandy Hook spree (along with other gun companies). CalSTRS, which has $750 million invested in Cerberus funds, made it known that it wasn’t happy about this news.

Hours later, Cerberus — whose CEO’s father lives in Newtown — announced that it was putting its firearms holdings up for sale.

What I don’t understand is this: Could this method be used to reduce the widespread sale of guns in this country? A democratic political operative I’m friendly with on Twitter thinks it’s the ballot, not the buck, that stops the bullet.* And there may be reasons why the above wouldn’t operate at scale.

Worth trying to understand why or why not though, right?

* Apologies if that conversation is a bit tough to follow via the link. I’m not feeling up to Storifying it to capture the context and order of how it unfolded.

Metropolitan

Now playing: Stone Roses and a Metropolitan

Media, Music,

This year, I’m trying to fill some holes in my musical knowledge by listening to some artists and albums that have escaped my ears in full. To do this without breaking the bank but still feel like I’m financially supporting good music, I bought a Spotify Premium membership. The streaming quality and selection are excellent. For the amount of listening I intend to do, it’s a steal at $10 a month.

I’m planning on buying the individual albums that most strike my fancy and The Stone Roses first album will be one I want to have on hand. As someone who likes music and owns hundreds of CDs and albums, it’s embarrassing to me I’ve never heard more than a couple songs off this album.* It is as good as everyone says it is but far more joyous, poppy (Beach Boys influences abound) and groove-y than I expected though offset by a quiet darkness. Listening to this album felt like meeting someone for the first time and instantly becoming best friends with him. I don’t have much else to add to all the critical accolades thrown its way so I’ll just say if you ever thought about tracking it down, do it.

MetropolitanErin and I were at the home our friends the Chibes this weekend. While Russ is mostly known for his beer knowledge, he mixes up some fine cocktails as well. He served us something like a Manhattan but with brandy instead of bourbon, which inspired me to whip up a Metropolitan but with Courvoisier instead of brandy because that’s what we had on hand as my wife puts together a mean cognac-marinated beef tenderloin for Christmas. It’s sweeter than a Manhattan but still has a nice warmth to it. Instead of boiling the sugar on the stove, I shortcutted the simple syrup by boiling a little water in the microwave (maybe 1/3 cup) then dissolving the sugar in it. Manhattans are my preference but it’s nice to have a substitute until the Christmas cognac runs out.

* I was familiar with “I Wanna Be Adored,” of course, and “Fool’s Gold” is a song I know well as it was one of the songs in a category marked “X” at my college radio station. “X” songs were the extra-long songs you put on during your solo overnight shifts from 2am-7am as they offered a long break during which one could use the bathroom without as much fear of dead air greeting your return.

 

Now playing: David Byrne’s How Music Works

Media, Music,

Received David Byrne’s book How Music Works for Christmas from my wife. I’m only on the first chapter but already love it. 20121230-080209.jpg

Byrne’s got a bit of the sly raconteur in him and it marries well with the goal of the book: to discuss how music comes to be through its performance, sale, distribution, recording and audience. His style combines a college lecture (especially in the way Byrne uses photos to illustrate his points) with the experience of talking to a clever person at a party.

If you’re one of those people who enjoys the feel of a book, track this one down in a bookstore just to weigh it in your hands. For a modern work, it has a surprisingly classic feel from its soft, faux-leather cover to the care that went into binding it. It’s only 300-some pages but suggests more. McSweeney’s published it and they’ve given it the same bespoke sensibility they give to other things they create. It’s an approach that suits Byrne’s text well.

Ask me another one

Politics

If Obama isn’t the luckiest politician in history, would you please name another?

via John Kass: Superstorm Sandy saves Obama from Benghazi

I don’t know…I guess I’d say George Bush in 2000 losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote thanks to a Supreme Court 5-4 decision giving him the win in Florida?

But that’s just off the top of my head and incredibly obvious to anyone who’s familiar with the last 15 years of politics so I’m sure someone smarter could come up with a better answer.

Just the clip: The Paper Machete -10.12.2012

Media, ,

Here’s my piece from last weekend’s Paper Machete show.

Sometimes you write something and you’re not sure how it reads until it gets in front of an audience. One of the reasons I love doing Machete is I get that instant feedback. Of course, I usually do something pegged to a news event that week so there’s rarely a reason to go back and revise and make the piece better. It felt weird to do this piece so long after the event in question even if that was kind of the point. Still, I wished I came up with a better tag at the end.

—

Does it seem weird to anyone else that we’re no longer talking about how the highest-rated cable news channel in America broadcast a live suicide?

(Don’t worry, it gets funnier.)

I know, I know, it happened a whole two weeks ago and with the speed at which news operates it’s like I’m pestering you about something that happened during the Taft administration. And sure it seems like it was an honest mistake but where was…the processing? The part where we as a society collectively feel remorse after something like this happens and examine How We Got Here was just…missing. It was as if we got really shitcanned the night before but we’re somehow able to get up the next morning and run a triathalon. All of the whippets but none of the headache. Whatever concerns we might have had about how our insatiable thirst for destructive acts led us – even inadvertently – to witness a live suicide were gone once the next episode of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo aired. (Because if that’s not a show about people killing themselves – albeit very, very slowly – then I don’t know what is.)

I had my thinking on this retroactively confirmed when I went back and read a post Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan wrote about how terrible it was that Fox News was running live car chases in the first place, and how they were “mayhem porn” and what did they expect would happen? Of course, all of this would have had more impact if Gawker hadn’t posted the unedited suicide clip itself some 45 minutes before. As the Big Dog says, it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did. Nolan’s justification for airing the clip was as follows “When we heard that Fox News had aired a suicide, what was the first thing we all did? Search on the internet for the clip. The clip is news.”

I invite all of you to review your own Internet search history to determine what it is you think of as news.

Gawker’s misunderstanding is really very simple: The news is not that this suicide happened – as Gawker pointed out, an unhappy ending to a car chase is almost the point of airing it in the first place – the news is the context in which it occurred. But that’s the part of this story that’s missing on Gawker, Buzzfeed and almost everywhere else that posted just the clip under the guise of news. What made the clip newsworthy wasn’t the event itself but that it violated a standard Fox News had set (which, I know, “Fox has standards,” LOL!).

It isn’t clear in the clip why that happened, only that it did. So the clip has almost no newsworthy value except for the portion where Shepherd Smith tries to explain why it happened and apologizes for it. But of course that’s not going to get anyone riled up and talking. What allows most media to get away with this double standard is the way news is structured around outrage and how many forms of media serve to troll you 24/7.

The other day I was watching a local morning newscast and their teaser into the break went something like “Find out who is behind a controversial weapons and ammunition tax” as if there was some shadowy Illuminati pulling the strings. Turns out? It was Toni Preckwinkle, the Cook County Board President and a more Establishment figure you will never find (her apparent sympathy for pot smokers aside). *

So nevermind that the city of Chicago has the highest homicide rate in years and maybe making guns and ammo more expensive is an idea worth exploring. No, we have to frame it as a plan with suspicious motives or it’s somehow less important and therefore we won’t be able to even feign interest. Similarly, television news is great at saying things like “This terrible thing has happened and it’s very offensive and right-thinking people everywhere object to it…Anyway, here it is.”

I was reminded of this listening to a recent interview with Gilbert Gottfried on Marc Maron’s podcast when Gottfried wondered if what he said about the Japanese tsunami was so offensive, why did most news outlets think it was OK to repeatedly say it or print it? The same holds true for Michael Richards’ yelling racial slurs at an audience. If saying certain things are so terrible that a man should lose his job, shouldn’t they be equally terrible to repeat? Or do they only become terrible upon repetition?

Maybe, in an unexpected way, there isn’t any harm in Gawker or Buzzfeed airing a clip of a guy killing himself when in our current media landscape these incidents aren’t really worth the import they’re given. They only seem that way because they’re everywhere now. Something isn’t just said, it’s retweeted, maybe hundreds of times and that amplification gives it an undeserved status as a topic worth discussing. And then a week later we wonder why we were so mad. We’re hit so often with stimuli that anything without an innate conflict is processed so fast by our brains that it’s out of our heads before we’ve had a chance to think it through. We move so quickly from one thing to the next that what passes for analysis is a blog post that’s written within an hour of the incident. So everything has to come with a little outrage attached. It’s not enough for Newsweek to run a story about the 101 best places to eat in the world. It has to run that story with a cover image of a woman fellating asparagus.

Or that appears to be the expectation many news organizations have of their audiences. Yet even Gawker must have felt some hesitation about reveling in the same mud it decried. On every post it publishes, you can see how many views and comments it’s garnered. But neither the post with the clip or the subsequent high-horse commentary displayed it. Some things are better not known.

At some point, I hope we sort this out. When everything is an outrage, then nothing is. And it would be nice to have the time to sort out the true harm from the completely inane before the next…OH COME ON! BIG BIRD IS GETTING FIRED? THIS…IS…BULLSHIT!

* Upon re-reading this, I’ve taken a bit of poetic license here. “You will never find” is going a bit far, even for the sake of a good line.

MySpace could stand to be more complicated

Internet, Media

So far, all the news stories I’ve read on the new MySpace make it sound like Jessica Biel: it’s very pretty and has an ongoing relationship with Justin Timberlake.

If people are talking more about the design of MySpace than its functionality that’s probably not a good long-term sign. When they do talk about the functionality, it’s compared to other social networking sites: Pinterest and Facebook, mostly.

Oddly enough, this is the reverse of MySpace’s previous problem: people ignored its lousy design because they loved its functionality. Facebook enjoys the same pass on its design even though it makes it harder to do things like tweak your privacy or sharing settings. But hey, who cares about that when there are so many pictures of babies and food and links to Buzzfeed lists?

Maybe MySpace had to lead with an exciting design to get the benefit of the doubt as it continues to create new features. That’s a decent argument.

But at least Jessica Biel also knows how to act.

End times

Uncategorized

I’m taking this week off before I start the new gig. A few stray observations that have been floating through my head on the crossover of work and personal lives.

* My list of things to do on my last day included five tasks that involved deleting cloud-based software programs (for productivity and file management, mostly) from my work computer that contain a mix of personal and professional data. Not counting removing work email access from my personal cell phone. Or removing access to work accounts from my social media tools. I’m not the first person to note the intertwined nature of work and personal time but it does seem for certain kinds of jobs it’s impossible to separate one from the other, especially if being “good” at your job means being aware of potential work issues quickly. There’s a longer post in here somewhere.

* It took me only 15 minutes to pack up my personal stuff in my office like photos, desk items, business cards and the like. I still had to sort through paper and electronic files and emails, but any trace of my personality was in a box in less time than it takes to watch a DVR’d episode of The Daily Show. (A co-worker compared the look of my office in the last week to a dorm on move-out day.) Armchair psychology might say this is the result of getting canned from a job prior to this one and never quite settling in the way I did there. For crying out loud, I got to select artwork from my office in the last gig. So maybe on a subconscious level, I wanted to keep the outward appearance of personal involvement in this job to a minimum in case it was suddenly taken away from me. Or maybe I’m just really good at packing when it doesn’t involve clothes.

* If it’s possible, find a way to make your last day a victory lap. Don’t schedule any meetings, don’t have any major tasks to accomplish, have your workspace and hard drive cleaned up already, etc. Just leave your final day for has-to-be-done-on-the-last-day stuff like turning in key cards, deleting the last of your emails and what have you