One New York Life

I’m really glad I didn’t have a teacher cruel enough to assign me this book in fifth grade. Instead, we got to read the infinitely cooler A Wrinkle In Time. What is it about children’s authors from the 70s who thought writing horrifically sad books would make 12-year-olds enjoy reading? It’s going on 25 years since I read Where The Red Fern Grows and, not only would I never read it again, I’d never suggest anyone read it, and I still hate Wilson Rawls. If you haven’t read it — never do. The end of the Futurama episode Jurassic Bark is the only thing that comes close to being more sad.

Of course, the sad part of the movie was very much marginalized. It was quickly done (off camera), just as quickly over, and they moved right on to his “recovery”. The final scene between Jesse, Leslie, and Prince Terrien — in the rain with her looking over her shoulder and waving good-bye — was sadder then anything that happened during the mop-up

I didn’t get it, I guess. The major plot point didn’t even seem like it was that big a part of the movie.

I got the tip to check out Hitman: My Real Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling via a review over on Bootleg’s site. And, much like with Watchmen, I’m going to take the easy way out and let Cam do the heavy lifting with his review.

One spot where I disagree with Cam’s review — Bret’s overbearing tone never gets to be too much for me. It seemed like he had his WWF reign in perspective. If it’s actually true that his merchandise was the top in international sales then I understand the creative control that he kept over his character. This fact (which I didn’t know until reading this book) really makes his whole “heel turn but only in America” storyline make way more sense then it did when it was happening. I do recall how the announcers continually framed him as a whiner for almost a year leading up to the turn. Now, a lot of it makes sense. I got played without even realizing it.

Now, that’s not to say Bret doesn’t come across insufferably full of himself. And, if you take a step back — how much of an asshole must Bret have been during his WWF days? No one in the history of wrestling books has ever had anything good to say about Shawn Michaels. Near as I can tell, everyone from management to locker room always hated Michaels — he refused to lose belts, was a pill-fiend, got beat up in bars for stealing girls, wrestled in drug hazes, retired for a year with a fake knee injury rather than put guys over, and just never put guys over in general. Shawn didn’t sell half the merchandise Bret did, was universally hated by most wrestling fans (even after his face turn) for being a pretty boy douche, and threw temper tantrums mid-match. And THIS was the guy Vince chose to back through the whole decade? How difficult must Bret have been to deal with? Did he just not suck up enough? Was he too over-bearing? How did Vince, within 2 years of giving this guy a 25-year contract, suddenly decide that he just couldn’t do it anymore? This is what fascinates me. And, as an aside, how much has these last five years after five years off saved Shawn Michaels’s legacy? If Shawn left forever after his match with Austin, Bret’s career would have probably been remembered as better. Instead, Shawn takes five years off and comes back when Hunter is at the height of power and is able to write his own ending. What did Bret do in a previous life? Rape nuns?

Bret isn’t exactly the world’s greatest writer, but he really does change the tone of the book properly from the beginning to end. In the beginning, when he’s talking about coming up through Stampede and traveling to Puerto Rico, his tone is hopeful. As he moves on through tragedy after tragedy and the business claims more and more lives, he becomes more bitter and beat down. His brother’s death, the reader can tell, killed wrestling for him.

As for the rest of his family — I need to read any book released by anyone in the Hart family or even tangentially related. The level of insanity in the Hart enclave is unspeakable. I had to put Diana Hart’s book on my list. Diana is such a horrible person that she conspired with the WWE to hurt Owen Hart’s wife Martha’s wrongful death suit against the WWF by stealing and faxing details of her team’s legal strategy to the WWE’s lawyers. Now, I work in the legal industry and I’m pretty sure that has to violate something or other. As for Bret’s wife… I don’t understand why he even married the woman, much less stayed with her. It comes across as he didn’t really want to get married and then never really enjoyed being married. It seemed like he found a person with an equal level of insane as the people in his own family.

If I had a complaint, I would have enjoyed a little more road stories and a little less about how everyone in the WWF locker room loved him. But then I might have missed out on the best Vince McMahon story — which was Bret outlining a plan for his match at Wrestlemania, Vince writing it down in a little book, and then returning a few days later to tell Bret about an awesome idea Vince had for Bret’s match at Wrestlemania. Vince rules.

All in all, one of the better wrestling books I’ve read since Foley 1 and a really good and honest biography overall.

TDL’s note: I didn’t write a beer snob last week because of the Atlantic City trip and then, like a gift from the gods, a surprise guest review appeared in my inbox. Thus leaving me only one more person to get on board to launch a whole new blog of beer snobbery. I turn the blog over.

——-

Hi! I’m the Big Show. Well, not that Big Show; I’m the one that’s referred to over in the links to the right of the screen there. Welcome to the first in a [hopefully] ongoing series of once-in-a-while guest columns where I review a wood-aged beer. To date, I’ve not met a wood-aged brew I didn’t want to make sweet, sweet, drinking love to. So let’s get to pouring!

Edinburgh Oak Aged Ale
Brewed by: Innis & Gunn
Brewed in: Edinburgh, Scotland
Type: Ale, aged in oak whiskey maturing barrels
ABV: 6.6%

What They Say: Per their website: Innis & Gunn oak-aged beer is like no other. Our pioneering production process is unique to us, a world first. In fact, it was discovered by accident! Using oak to age beer is unheard of. But, the flavours imparted by the oak barrels (previously used to mature bourbon) lend an incredible depth of taste. Think vanilla, toffee and orange aromas, with a malty, lightly oaked palate; soothing and warm in the finish. There is nothing like this among mass produced beers.

Website: After clicking “Yes” or “No” to answer whether or not you’re of your country ‘s legal drinking age, the front page opens fairly clean. There are a variety of links across the top, from a page displaying all the awards the beer has won (with links for each), to a section devoted to which foods pair well with the beer (a feature I enjoy). There is a now-defunct offer to get their official glass, which they swear is THE way to enjoy the beer. Also included is a “Where To Buy” link. All of these sections are backed by a graphic of a wooden barrel, which remains unchanged no matter where on the site you go.

Why This One, Show?: I was introduced to this beer two years ago, and immediately fell in love with it. Also, I figured I’d start with a beer that’s only produced wood-aged, as opposed to a brewer’s offering of “We took our already available beer X, and aged it in wood to make Y.” Plus, I’m Scottish, and love beer and whiskey—it’s a win-win!

Presentation (5): The bottle is clear glass with both embossed features and labels. Embossed in the glass are the brewery name, “I&G”, and “Edinburgh.” On the label is a drawing of some barrels, the name again, the master brewer’s signature (nice touch), a notice that the beer is wood-aged for 77 days, and the ABV the beer is bottled at. It’s classy, and while clear glass is frowned upon as a bottle material, this bottle is supposed to sit aging in the basement until it’s opened. 4

Originality (5): The beer pours out a dark amber color—the kind of color you’d get if you had a bourbon on the rocks and the ice melted a bit. On top is a small head of bone-white foam. Take a whiff of the beer in the glass—right away hints of vanilla and caramel waft up to your nose. Using oak to age beer isn’t as “unheard of” as I&G’s website will have you believe, but as far as ales go, it’s got a pretty unique smell and taste. 4

Body (10): This is a very smooth-drinking ale. The aforementioned hints of vanilla and caramel combine with a very malty beer to go down easy. There’s almost no hop bite to this brew—every sip glides effortlessly down the throat. That isn’t to say that there’s no body; on the contrary, the maltiness of the beer gives it a good presence in the mouth. That presence, however, doesn’t overstay its welcome at the end of the sip, and you’re left wanting more. 8

Taste (10): This is where this beer excels for me. The whiskey-barrel aging gives an already-decent Scottish ale a very unique, and tasty, flavor. Each sip starts out slightly sweet, immediately imparting its vanilla flavor. The flavor moves forward spreading the maltiness of the beer across the tongue, feeling almost silky as it moves through the mouth. At the finish is a bit of the bourbon essence, with a bit of toffee for good measure. 9

Efficiency (10): At 6.6% ABV, the smoothness of this beer masks its strength. Due to the wood aging, there’s virtually no alcohol smack to this beer. If you enjoy malty beers without a lot of hop kick to them, this is a very efficient beer. 8

Versatility (10): This may be the only vein in which this beer does NOT succeed. At about $6 for a 11.2 oz bottle, this isn’t something you’re picking up a 12-pack of to bring to your buddy’s place for the game. In fact, I’ve only seen this sold in single 11.2 oz. and 23.7 oz. bottles. This beer is a special occasion beer. Or, if you happen to be fantastically independently wealthy, an everyday beer. And please bring me some. 4

Final Grade: 36 (out of 50) – Really Good Beer

For more beer reviews by The Big Show and others, be sure to check out Those Beer Snobs.

Since I have no idea when, or even if, the final three episodes of Pushing Daisies will air on ABC, now is as fitting a time as any to eulogize it.

I usually don’t get in to the whole “Brilliant But Canceled” thing, nor do I ever really get in to the “Greatest Shows You’re Not Watching” thing. Usually, I’m not a fan of these shows for one of the following reasons — it takes itself way too seriously, it’s way too angsty, or it’s way too deep. In fact, when I posted my initial thoughts on Daisies way back during Premiere Week 2007, I said:

I don’t read TV columns for the most part, but I have a feeling that the words “quirky” and “too smart” have been worn out on this show. The thing is: it actually really IS quirky, funny, and pretty smart. Usually these are buzzwords for a show that’s going to end up on the “Brilliant But Canceled” List.

Sadly, it will. While the show was certainly quirky, it never fell in to the trap of being too morbid (difficult on a show based around death), too smart, or too deep. They never got in to really deep things like “what was it like being dead” even when they woke up Chuck’s 20-years-dead father. They did their best to offset even the implied morbidity with absurdly bright colors and ridiculous wardrobe choices. The characters played off each other extremely well — Chuck’s stubborn refusal to let Emerson’s gruffness affect her, Emerson’s ongoing attempts to dislike Chuck and Olive but just starting to lose, Chuck and Ned’s frustrating relationship, Ned’s odd relationship with Chuck’s zombie father — it just all worked. Chi McBride’s “oh HELLL no” catchphrase even worked. The last three aired episodes gave the sense they’d hit their stride. The stories started to crash and tie together. Hopefully, the final three episodes will properly put the series to bed and give the characters some kind of closure.

I’d like to blame the writers’ strike for killing off this show, but I can’t. Ratings fell from the premiere and never stopped. It just didn’t catch on. Apparently, the only crime America wants is procedural crime drama; quirky, funny mystery-solving apparently dies for good at Scooby-Doo.

1) Way too much ink is being spilled on why Ken Whisenhunt elected to kickoff in the first quarter. He sent a telegram to Ben Roethlisberger that said “what’cha got?” Roethlisberger responded. Did everyone see Ben’s last Super Bowl appearance? It was the right move.

2) James Harrison’s run-back was one of the more clutch plays in Super Bowl history. Steeler fans are pointing out that Larry Fitzgerald was out of bounds when he tackled Harrison which should have been a penalty. The lack of flag there is proof of referee ineptness on both sides. So yeah, a penalty the Steelers would have declined at-best or gotten a zero-time field-goal attempt at worst is totally the same as giving the Steelers a free set of downs following a 15-yard “running in to the holder” call after the Cardinals defender was tripped in to the holder. Exactly the same.

3) Speaking of James Harrison, he should have been ejected for essentially punching a guy in the face after a play. But it was called totally down the middle.

4) The Bruce Springsteen set was “meh”. I wanted to love it, but the whole thing just seemed campy. The ref coming out and throwing a flag for delay of game, the power-slide in to the camera, jumping on the piano… it all seemed so — I don’t know — scripted, I guess? And, to the people who thought he should play Born In The USA: uh, listen to the lyrics some time. I’m sure Hines Ward would have loved it.

5) The bad officiating can be neatly summarized by complaining about everything that happened from the time Ben Roethlisberger threw a beautiful pass to Santonio Holmes in the end zone for the game’s final score. Holmes used the ball as a prop to mimic LeBron’s pre-game powder toss. The Steelers should have been kicking off from the 15. Following the kickoff, whoever tackled JJ Arrington stood over him and mimed kicking dirt on him. That should have been another 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct.

6) No, the Holmes unsportsmanlike non-call is not a make-up for not flagging Kurt Warner for taking off his helmet. The helmet rule is an anti-celebratory call, not an arguing with an official before you challenge a ruling call. The only judgment in the prop call is whether or not the player used the ball as a prop, which Holmes clearly did. Besides the point, you don’t whistle a “make-up” call on a call that largely didn’t matter (the Cardinals punted on the same possession) and you REALLY don’t with 40 seconds left in the friggin’ Super Bowl.

7) The fumble call to end the game was probably correct. However, in a league where pretty much every close call is reviewed, the league should have at least made a show of reviewing the final play. There isn’t a person in America (and that includes Steeler fans) who didn’t have the exact same reaction when Ben took a knee: “They’re not reviewing that???” followed by a gaping look of disbelief at the television. The non-review was so absurd that the NFL had to issue a press-release saying it was a fumble and the replay official confirmed it and saw nothing to buzz the field. Really? The replay official has buzzed the referee for significantly less. The NFL is refusing to acknowledge it was fishy, the NFL Network analysts have zero to say on the matter, and the front page of NFL.com says nothing about it. Geez, after the officiating debacle in Steelers/Seahawks, I can’t imagine why people would think that the Rooneys have a direct line of communication to the commissioner’s office and officiating crew. The call was probably correct, but if the referee doesn’t take a second look at a close, game-deciding play with five-seconds left in the Super Bowl, why the f*ck even have a replay system?

8) Best 5 commercials in no particular order: E-trade baby trash talks about golf, Free Doritos, Teleflora’s No one wants to see you naked, Bud Light’s guy gets thrown out the window, and Pepsuber (if you’re an SNL fan) or careerbuilder.com’s Moose-butt in guy’s office. Honorable mention goes to Taco Bell’s aggressive date guy.

9) Kurt Warner is a hall-of-fame quarterback. There’s not even a question anymore. Had the defense gotten the stop when it mattered, people would be arguing this game against Phil Simms’s 22/25. 31/43, 377 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT is epic against what was supposedly the league’s best defense. The Fitzgerald/Warner tandem was so good in this game, they would have had to go co-MVP had the Cardinals won.

10) It’s all moot because the Bidwills are awful people who claim a title they didn’t win, refuse to even discuss the option of making it right with the people who did, and should lose their franchise and their fortune. Sorry, Cardinals fans… karma’s a bitch.