Comments (14)

I don’t recall exactly what she said, but blogging pal Keats mentioned something on her page that set my mind to thinking of how badly Los Angeles has been destroyed by developers. I could probably spend a lifetime writing about the awful changes, but suffice to say that Los Angeles used to be a hell of a lot nicer than it is now. At times it can seem to be nothing but strip malls connected by freeways, clogged with traffic and choked by smog.

I grew up in Hawthorne, one of the many small cities that make up what most people refer to as Los Angeles. Today’s post is a reminiscence of what was once a beautiful city, now forever lost.

Here is the Hawthorne Bowl, which was on Hawthorne Blvd. near 141st. In addition to the bowling lanes it also had a bar, coffee shop, and a few pool tables. In 1961 the name was changed to Tropicana lanes, and that groovy early ’60s sign was erected. If you watch “Grease 2” you can see the bowling alley in one scene. If you go there now you will see some medical offices.

This next one is Holly’s, which was later known as the Hawthorne Grill. To many people, myself included, it defined Hawthorne– it was her heart and soul. You took it for granted that it would always be there. Unfortunately, a modern city can never have too many strip malls, so Holly’s was demolished.

The opening and closing sequences of “Pulp Fiction” were filmed at the Hawthorne Grill.

Here is Chips Restaurant, another ’50s-era diner. Happily, this restaurant is still there. Or at least it was the last time I was in Hawthorne. The demolition of Holly’s came as a nasty shock to me when I pulled up to a vacant lot in search of breakfast one morning.

If you moved along Hawthorne Blvd. and went one block south of El Segundo you would have been at Skippy’s.

Skippy’s was later renamed Biggie’s, and it was one of the great Hawthorne hangouts in the late ’50s and early ’60s. For 19 cents you could buy a hamburger, and french fries were an extra 14 cents. If you had another 24 cents you could splurge for a malt. Even by 1960s standards, those were cheap prices.

They tore down Biggie’s to build a Sizzler.

Here’s the now-gone A&W,

and a menu for the Wichstand, also no more.

After we moved away, we would always stay at the Cockatoo Inn Hotel when we visited. It was really nice

It’s not as nice now:

Here’s another long-lost Hawthorne landmark, the Lighthouse Drive-In. It was another eatery, popular amongst my Mom’s high school crowd at Leuzinger High.

You can click the image below to see the Lighthouse’s menu as it looked in the late ’50s. (Click to enlarge.)

Each time a landmark is demolished to make way for an ugly, cookie-cutter strip mall, Hawthorne loses something precious, but perhaps near the top of the list of locales which are missed is the Plaza Theater. One by one this nation’s beautiful cinemas are being destroyed and replaced with ugly multiplex theaters. This picture doesn’t do justice to the Plaza, but you can almost make out the wonderful open-frame steel tower with the Plaza letters on it.

Now let’s take a broader look at the city. Here are some panoramic photographs that will hopefully give you a better idea of the town. You can click on each of them to see them at their full size.

The first one is the block across from where I grew up. If you scroll all the way to the right (the picture is pretty long) you will see Mastin’s Drugstore. My mother worked there, many many moons ago. Look at all the unique buildings, each one serving its purpose for the community.

Now brace yourself. Here is what it looks like today. This is the same shot, 50 years or so later. May I present to you the Broadway Mall, currently closed and boarded up due to lack of business. Is it any surprise that nobody came here to shop? The Plaza Theater above was just one of the many buildings that was destroyed to build this crime-riddled eyesore.

In this next picture, this time the west side of Hawthorne Blvd. near 122nd, you can see the streetcar tracks running down the middle of the road. They tore out the tracks when they got rid of the street cars, and turned it into a left turn lane to accommodate the cars everyone bought once you could no longer get around via the Los Angeles Railway. You can also see Chaney’s department store. My father worked there for a while, learning the shoe trade before he opened his own shoe store nearby.

Speaking of my Chaney’s, here’s a great picture of the Chaney’s staff in October of 1957. Not exactly pertinent to the post, but a fun picture nonetheless. If you click it, it will get bigger. Can you spot my daddy?

Here’s my Dad again, this time with his friend Roy. You can see Hawthorne Blvd. in the background. Notice all the open space. You certainly couldn’t play baseball there now. Speaking of open space, my grandfather used to cook cabliagetti (sp?), a variety of wild mustard green, that he picked in the open field in Hawthorne that is today a part of the Los Angeles International Airport. My uncles hunted rabbits there. I bet there are no longer wild rabbits in Hawthorne; if there are any, they certainly are not living at LAX.

And once again, Dad. This time at his then-new shoe store. This was taken in about 1961. A few years back the city of Hawthorne invoked the law of eminent domain and forced us all to sell our property in order for them to build a new police department, so the store is no more.

Do I sound bitter? I am. I am deeply saddened when I drive through any city, not just my hometown, and see row after row of Home Depot, Starbucks, KFC, Jamba Juice, and so on. It’s just the same shops and restaurants, repeated over and over. I am not anti-corporation at all, and I think it’s great to have chain stores, but not exclusively. It’s the unique businesses that give each city its character and personality, and when you just replicate the same thing over and over again, it’s not only ugly and boring, but it destroys the quality of life and removes the fun of exploring a new city.

Comments (2)

It sometimes seems that new technologies surface on a daily basis. Society is constantly being bombarded with new inventions, and improvements upon old ones. I ignore most of them, and when I do adopt some new device, I tend to do so begrudgingly. The mobile telephone is a perfect example of this. Due to the nature of my job, I was among the first people to start using a mobile phone when they became readily available to the non-wealthy members of the populace, but I regretted having to do so; I needed one because I sometimes have to coordinate and manage as many as 40 or more people, working on 5 or more simultaneous events in all corners of the Bay Area.

Every now and then something really great comes along and changes my life for the better. For instance:

Laptop– It has freed me to do many things I could not do before. Whether it’s something simple like forwarding my calls to my mobile phone (which I now happily embrace) and working remotely from a cafe, the beach, a park, or basically anywhere, or something wonderful like having access to thousands of mp3s at the touch of a button when I DJ, my laptop has markedly improved my life.

Sonicare toothbrush– I used to hate going the the dentist, and brushing my teeth was just a bland daily routine. In the few years I’ve had my Sonicare I’ve come to relish not only the brushing, but the flattering remarks from the dentist about how sparklingly clean my teeth are.

DVD player– I enjoy watching movies (who doesnt’?), but I seldom purchased them on VHS tapes, as they didn’t seem to last very long. Now that DVDs exist, I have free reign to buy all my favorite films, or at least the ones that are available as DVDs, without fear of them wearing out. I must have well over 100 films by now, and I must confess– I had about 20 before I finally bought a DVD player.

Those three are all that come to mind. Like I said, I ain’t much for technology. I live in a Tiki Lounge and drive a car from the 1950s; it is clear I am not an “early adopter.”

Today’s Question: Have any technological advances bettered your ilfe?

Comments (11)

I am of the opinion that there is nothing unethical or immoral about downloading free music from the internet. The R.I.A.A. would have you believe otherwise, but after careful thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that peer-to-peer file sharing and the free access to music it creates is both justifiable and ethical.

So why is the R.I.A.A. so gung-ho about file sharing? It has nothing to do with the alleged declining album sales (which are probably just a symptom of the current recession). Their posturing about “protecting the artists” is surely just a smokescreen for their effort to destroy online music distribution period. They want to keep distribution rights in the hands, and pocketbooks, of the record companies. But it would look bad for them to come out and say “we are manipulating the law to stifle potential competition,” so instead they attempt to make it seem as if they are protecting the musicians. In reality, the R.I.A.A. is nothing more than a cartel with a monopoly on a distribution gateway.

The argument goes a lot deeper then the misdirection on the part of the R.I.A.A. The laws regarding file sharing need to be changed. Downloading an mp3 is not theft. Legally, yes it may be, but I am not talking about the law here. Some laws are wrong, and need to be changed. So let me restate: ethically, downloading an mp3 is not theft. No tangible object or product has been stolen when a person downloads a song to his computer. All that has happened is that a series of ones and zeroes have rearranged themselves on that person’s hard drive, resulting in a stored file. The R.I.A.A. would have you believe that a download is no different then stealing a candy bar from a store, but that argument is untenable.

For the sake of our example, let’s say Hershey’s makes 10 candy bars in a year at a cost of 50 cents per bar. The candy bars are in the store, selling for $1 per bar, and one is stolen. The remaining nine sell. Hershey’s brings in $9 instead of the $10 they could have, for a net profit of $4. Meanwhile, a record company puts out 10 albums in a year, again at a cost of 50 cents per album, and they sell for $1 each. Even if someone downloads the content of the album, there are still 10 albums for sale, and the record company can make $5 if they all sell.

The R.I.A.A. may argue that the availability of free music online will preclude people from purchasing an album in the store. Record companies unsuccessfully made the same argument years ago in an attempt to ban the playing of music on the radio. Now they say that online downloads will decrease album sales. Actual statistics demonstrate otherwise, and Napster and its descendants almost certainly led to an increase in album sales as people downloaded music, decided they liked it, and then purchased the album. However, even if the opposite is true, and mp3s are leading to decreased album sales—so what? Harsh words, perhaps, but let’s examine the situation a bit further and see if it really does matter if mp3s are leading to the demise of album sales.

When the car was invented, horse and buggy sales began to decline. Soon cars had replaced them altogether. Should we have foregone the automobile because of the negative effects it had on the horse and buggy market? Of course not. When something comes along and makes something else obsolete, it’s just a sad fact of life that the obsolete object fades away. Manufacturers of caps were no doubt dismayed when hats took over as the headwear of choice in the middle of the 20th century, and, in turn, milliners watched in dismay as men stopped wearing headwear altogether. It’s simply the way business works, and the same thing is now happening to music.

Music itself has always been a free medium. It’s something you hear. When you pay for an album, you are in actuality paying for the storage medium, not the music. Turn on the radio, go to a night club, attend a concert—the music itself is free. An mp3 is not a physical product, and neither is the music it represents. Consider parallel examples:

If a person watches Britney Spears dance on MTV, then goes to a night club and attempts to do the same dance steps, she hasn’t violated an moral code or law. If she watches an episode of Seinfeld, then retells some of the jokes the next day at the water cooler, she is still in the clear. Only music is treated like some sort of commodity. I’ll examine why in just a moment, but first it’s important to cover the issue of intellectual property rights.

The topic of intellectual property laws comes up often when mp3s are discussed. But let’s look closely at those laws as the R.I.A.A. would have you interpret them. Just who do they protect— the intellects or the property owners? The spirit of the law, with regard to music, is such that it protects the songwriters. If an artist writes a song, another artist should not be allowed to profit from performing that song without compensating the author. If the song is used to promote a product, or to enhance a scene in a movie, again the author should be compensated. If a radio station broadcasts a song, and in doing so generates ad revenues for the station, they too must compensate the author. Free music online in no way affects any of that. Artists are still fairly compensated for all commercial usages of their songs. However, the R.I.A.A. is of the opinion that individuals who hear the song need also offer compensation to the artist. That’s absurd.

If an individual downloads an mp3 for free and listens to it, that is no different then if he tapes it from the radio, copies it from a friend, or buys the album, copies it, and returns it. Some of those are legal, some aren’t, but all are harmless. The vast majority of the people who download songs aren’t going to buy them regardless of whether they can find an mp3 for free or not. Since the mp3 is there and free they will take it, but were it not available they would simply do without. Fans of an artist nearly always buy the album anyway, as the sound quality is superior, they get the liner notes, the cover art, and so forth.

When we include record companies in the discussion, we at last we come to the raison d’etre for the R.I.A.A.’s scheme. The record companies are the only entities that stand to lose out if it becomes legal to share music for free online. They are the hat-makers in the previous example. They have found a way to profit from music and musicians, and they will lose some of that profit if people are allowed to share music online for free. That’s unfortunate for them, but not a valid reason to make both consumers and artists suffer. And suffer they will, if the R.I.A.A. has its way. We’ve already seen how the consumer is affected. Instead of getting music for free, consumers will have to pay for it. But what about the artists? Do they benefit when their music is traded freely online? Yes, they benefit immensely.

The real profit for musicians has never been album sales. Rather, the big bucks come from merchandise sales, endorsements, concerts, appearances, and such. Free distribution of an artist’s music online doesn’t detract from any of that at all. It probably helps it. It can’t hurt it, as we are about to see.

Another example will illustrate this nicely. A band that signs an incredibly beneficial deal with a record company may get a 20% royalty rate along with a $1 million advance. No band has ever actually received a royalty rate as high as 20%, but to error in the favor of the record companies, we’ll go with that figure. What happens to that band and their money? It will cost at least half a million dollars to record the album, which the band pays for, leaving them with half a million. Their manager receives an industry-standard 20% commission, $100k, leaving them with $400k. The band’s lawyer and business manager each receive $25k. The band now has $350k, which amounts to $180k after taxes. Assuming the band has 4 members, that’s a whopping $45k each.

Now we fast forward a year. The album is in stores, and it’s a big hit. It goes platinum, meaning it sells one million copies. In doing so, the record company released two singles, each with an accompanying video. Each video cost $1 million to make, half of which is recouped by the label from the band’s royalties. The label spends another $200k on the band’s tour, which they also recoup from the band’s royalties. Another $300k is spent promoting the band on the radio, also charged to the band. That adds up to $1 million. Add that to the $1 million advance, and the band owes the label $2 million.

Luckily the band in our example has a 20% royalty due, because they’re going to need it. If all 1 million albums sold were sold at full-price, which probably won’t be the case as many will sell at a discount price or through a record club, the band will earn $2.00 per record. That works out to $2 million. The band has just enough to pay back the record company. The $45k each member received turned out to be the sum total of all their profit. Keep in mind that a 20% royalty rate has never been given to any act, and in reality most bands are lucky to even break even; many go bankrupt.

Meanwhile, what did the record company in our example earn? The gross profit for the one million albums sold is $11 million. The expenses involved in manufacturing the CDs, promoting the album, and filming videos come out to about $4.4 million, leaving them with a profit of $6.6 million.

That is what the R.I.A.A. is fighting to protect, and it is what we need to fight to see that they lose.

Here, have a free mp3: Currently Playing: Metallica – Master of Puppets

Comments (35)

This Saturday, the annual “Big Game” between my alma mater, California (a.k.a. U.C. Berkeley), and Stanfurd takes place. For more than 100 years the two schools have been fierce rivals, and besting one another on the football pitch has been the prime indicator of whether the season was a success or a flop. News of this pending football match set my mind to thinking about all the fun a rivalry provides.

Now, at first glance, perhaps that concept seems silly. After all, who wants someone competing for the same resources as you? Wouldn’t a rival-free existence be preferable? I pondered this, and came to the conclusion that while life may be easier when you have access to everything you want, and needn’t fight for it, easier doesn’t always equate to better.

Currently Playing: Joe Starkey – The 1982 Big Game Finale

The sound you hear right now (if you’ve clicked the link, your speakers are turned on, and you aren’t on some archaic dial-up connection) is the voice of Joe Starkey at his insane best, calling “The Play” that finished the 1982 Big Game. It picks up with John Elway orchestrating a last-minute drive to give Stanford what looks to be a sure victory, after which point mayhem ensues. I guarantee you will not regret taking a moment out of your day to listen to this soundbite.

Such a thrilling finish to a sporting event can excite nearly anyone, but a casual bystander probably won’t experience the same level of unbridled euphoria at hearing “The Play” as will a Cal student, alum, or diehard fan. The rivalry even allows the moment to transcend the medium– I’m by no means an enthusiastic sports fan, but I get chills listening to this clip, predicated almost entirely by my scholastic connection to the victorious team, and disdain for the defeated rival. Therein lies the magic. A rivalry gives one the chance to experience the great high of overcoming obstacles and achieving a victory over a despised foe. And conversely, unless you’re a ‘furd, you can’t feel the true level of despair and heartache that the loss brought with it. (Happily, they can, and I hope a few ‘furds are reading now, just so you can relive that moment of exquisite pain when that god-awful band of yours cost you The Axe.)

As an aside, besides the obvious best moment when Joe Starkey yells “oh, the band is out on the field!” my favorite part of the attached audio clip is the roar of the Memorial Stadium crowd a split-second before Starkey loses it for a second time. He didn’t even need to say “the Bears have won,” for the reaction of the Berkeley crowd said all.

I feel sorry for the students at Universities that don’t have an arch-rival. Even though it’s awful when your team loses a rivalry match, it’s all worth it on the days when they win. Moreover, there is unparalleled fun in preparing for an upcoming game, with hope alive in the air, and a palpable sense of anticipation amplifying every moment in the days leading up to the match, just as there is in reliving the glory of victories past.

The advantage of having a rival extends beyond the world of sports. In nearly every aspect of life it can be exciting and beneficial to have a one. The competitor pushes you to better yourself, lest you fall behind them. They become a benchmark, a standard to meet and exceed, and you become the same to your rival. The end result is two entities constantly striving to outperform one another, with both becoming better in the process.

Today’s Question: Do you have your own personal rival?

Go Bears!

Comments (7)

The various wars happening around the globe are constant news items. When I read or hear reports concerning them, I am struck by the differences between our modern conflicts and those of the recent past. Apparently, not only were films in black & white, dresses longer, and music more swingin’ in the 1940s, wars were different, too. Nowadays it’s not so much about stopping maniacal dictators from rampaging about Europe, laying waste to all in their path, and enslaving new populaces on a daily basis, as it is about preventing small, independent terrorist groups from blowing up landmarks and killing hella people. The times they have a’changed. What would FDR do?

Incidentally, I have been remiss in posing questions in my blogs of late. I’d like to think that it’s because I’ve honed my blogging style over the course of the past 10 months, and am now writing concise and coherent bits of prose that flow effortlessly from thesis to logical conclusion. More likely, I’ve just been forgetting. This time around I shan’t do so. Today’s Question: If you got to play maniacal dictator for a day, what country would you most like to conquer?

Comments (51)

At the risk of ruffling feathers, today I want to write at least in part about religion. Allow me to begin with a caveat: I am in no way advocating that anyone tergiversate from any religious beliefs, nor am I ridiculing anyone’s faith; I’m simply going to put my own beliefs out there for discussion.

I don’t believe in a god, in the same way that I don’t believe in the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, or an invisible friend named Grover. Which is not to say I insist no such things exist; rather, I lump Jesus, Allah, and Santa Claus into the same general category of stuff that is arbitrary and unprovable, and therefore of no consequence to my life.

The fact that so many people are willing to believe in gods, without any evidence, interests me greatly, so I am keen to write about it. I don’t judge anyone on their beliefs, nor do I think any individual is immature or primitive because they believe in a god. I do think that the widespread belief in gods is evidence of the immaturity of the human race as a whole, but individuals are another matter. An individual (usually) believes because the group does, so any one person who believes in something, even something fantastic, is in no way flawed or primitive. That person is a product of his environment. To take a random example, a citizen of ancient Greece who believed in Zeus was not foolish for believing the prevailing myth.

As a race, humans have taken amazing strides in terms of science and medicine. We’ve put men on the moon, cured scores of diseases, and have a firm understanding of the universe at its most basic, sub-atomic level. We have computers and airplanes, the internet and mobile phones, to name but a few seemingly miraculous inventions. However, in terms of mental enlightenment, although we may like to think otherwise, we’re only a few steps beyond the level of the primitive.

I’m not referring exclusively to religion here, but to all forms of superstition. It’s preposterous to even consider that the number 13 is unlucky, yet nearly all buildings skip the 13th floor, instead jumping from 12 to 14. Countless people actually believe in good luck charms, lucky traditions, curses, or that you can jinx something by talking about it. It’s all complete nonsense, but the belief in the existence of luck or the truth of superstitions is deep-rooted in many people. And really, how can we believe we’re an enlightened populace when a significant percentage of the population believes in astrology?

Today’s Question: If the Red Sox meet the Cubs in the World Series, will the world end?

Comments (9)

Fellow blogger ThursdayNext posed a question: “During what era would you most want to live?” I chose 1945-1957 America. While commenting, I was reminded me of an ad from a 1950 issue of Life Magazine. I dug it up and scanned it so I could share it with you.

This ad makes no sense to a modern viewer. Women leaving their babies and toddlers unattended while shopping? They might as well post on Craig’s List and invite all the local pedophiles to come enjoy the smorgasbord of young flesh. No, life was clearly different in 1950.

Now, as intelligent denizens of the 21st century, we all know that the 1950s were a repressive prison of Brylcreem and gray flannel conformism, and anyone who would willingly choose such an era over today’s land of freedom and choice must be either an idiot or a McCarthyite, right? Right?

Heretical though it sounds, were the 1950s… better???

Impossible! Yet, I might very well trade away my freedom to wear a shocking pink mohawk and pierce my tongue if the exchange was the sense of safety and community that has gone by the wayside. Now you tell me what YOU think.

And here is a song, evocative of the era, to hear while you ponder your answer.

Comments (5)

More than a few people have commented or emailed concerning my “reviews,” usually to the effect of, “those aren’t proper reviews.” Well, they aren’t exactly meant to be traditional reviews. In fact, they aren’t reviews at all. I enjoy writing, and this blog is my way of indulging that hobby. Sometimes I find inspiration to write in the form of a song or book, and while I realize that traditionally people write about such things to express an opinion or to convince you to buy (or avoid buying) it, that’s not my intent.

I sometimes feel the need to express a thought or emotion that a song conjures up within me, or to share what I feel are especially well-written lyrics. That’s it. I seldom consult reviews when it comes to music, and I don’t feel qualified to write one. If you happen to listen to a song I mention and enjoy it, well, great! If you dislike it, so be it. I put little stock in opinions in general; I don’t think anyone really knows much of anything at all, we all simply have beliefs that help us navigate the world around us. I put even less stock in opinions regarding art. We like what we like, and to some people the Spice Girls are just as good as Beethoven, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Speaking of the songs about which I write, I want to take a moment to remind you that when I list a song as “currently playing, rather than merely seeing the song in print, like this,

Currently Playing: Mono – Life in Mono

you can click the link to hear it. Fancy that. Are you hearing it? Well, are you? No? Turn your speakers up, silly. There, now you can hear it. Isn’t it the best? Close your eyes and just imagine yourself cruising in Pinky, my pink ’62 Thunderbird (R.I.P.). It’s late at night, the streets are empty, and…hey! Your eyes are open. Cheater!

Okay, no more silliness. But yah, the song you are (hopefully) hearing now is what I’d sometimes play while prowling the streets in Pinky. Money pit though she was, I miss that car sooo much. I love Tiffany, my current car, but Pinky was a one in a million.

The Money Pit

As for the song, this is the song by the “other” Mono. There is this really great Japanese band called Mono, and then there is the crappy “band” that made this song, which for some reason is a really good song to me. I think the rest of their songs are crappy. Unlike the good Mono. From Japan.

Comments (4)

People love their sports, seemingly more so now than ever. Lately, we have countless television and radio stations devoted entirely to the topic. Magazine stands have entire shelves populated by nothing but sporting magazines. Book shops have sports sections. I don’t remember this always being the case, though I can’t hazard a guess as to why there has been an explosion in the popularity of sports.

I possess only a vague awareness of the sporting world. I can name a handful of teams for which I ostensibly root, though primarily because my father once pulled for them. I know that football success on the part of Rams and Raiders was lauded. The Detroit teams, especially the Redwings and Tigers, were beloved, and the basketball teams of choice were the Lakers and Warriors. Of course, my interest extends no farther than checking the standings of the teams once or twice per month, and smiling if any of the above teams rules its respective league. And while I don’t have the patience to sit through an actual match, I’m happy to look up the score of a particularly important game after it has been played. I have tried, but I just can’t bring myself to care about sports, so it all washes over me like some sort of soapy liquid. But then something else rinses me off, because I don’t feel soapy.

Most of the teams listed above seem to be successful. I’ve come to the conclusion that those are the worst teams to support, for success at any level other than an outright championship is downright disappointing. The Raiders made it all the way to the title game, but lost. How maddening! Second best feels far worse than last place. You get your hopes up, only to have them dashed at the last moment. At least I know the Detroit Tigers aren’t going to let me down. They’ll again be among the worst teams in baseball this year, possibly THE worst. Nothing in sports beats consistent and predictable mediocrity, at least in my estimation.

Today’s Question: How fond of sports are you, and do you root for any teams in particular?

If you do root for a team, does it bother you at all that your team’s roster changes drastically from year to year? At some point, professional sports switched from being athletics to being business. Massive paychecks and free agency became the norm, and it gradually became impossible for a team to retain its players for more than a few years at a time. The negative result of this is that your favorite player on your favorite team will almost certainly be starring for another team next year. I wonder, if you compared the roster of a team today to its roster of five years ago, how many players would be on both lists? Very few, I imagine. It’s impossible to be fans of the players anymore, only the corporate entity that is the team. Which means at the end of the day, you’re cheering for a helmet, logo, or color scheme, and not any specific group of athletes. Count me out, thanks.

On a lighter note, another silly thing I found online:

What Kind of Dog are You?

Click that line of text to find out what kind you are. It turns urns out I’m…

…A Golden Retriever!

No bones about it, you’re a popular, fun-loving Golden Retriever. Adored by all and too cool for school, you’re extroverted and enthusiastic. Your magnetic personality makes you the life of any bash. Since you’re a true people-dog, you genuinely love all kinds of social gatherings. Going to parties, dinners, and other shindigs is the best way to add faces to your constantly growing circle of friends. But besides being on the social A-list, you’re a confident, well-rounded pup who’s definitely something to bark about. Pretty accomplished at anything you set your mind to, your sunny nature and winning ways make you one of everyone’s favorite dogs. Woof!