Clearing House

It's a rare occurrence when not one or two, but three sports teams in a town have a chance, and good cause, to blow things up and start rebuilding from nothing. DC United, the Washington Wizards and the Redskins all missed the playoffs in their most recent seasons and all three have also had very recent coaching changes. The Caps are doing great, though.

The issue with these three losing teams is that in the current sports environment it's tough for a franchises to say to their season ticket holders, "We're gonna suck for the next three or four years, but then we'll get awesome again. We promise." This does not sell tickets or jerseys. The Redskins and DC United are both in similar territory, in that the fans expect a winning team each season, whether rightfully (DC United) or not (Redskins). DC United are absolutely in better shape. Sure the big offensive weapons are old or gone (Jamie, Christian and Luci), but there's a core of young players who can step it up and dominate (Pontius, Rodney, Jakovic, and the intriguing new signing Christian Castillo).

For the Redskins it's tougher. First there's still no consensus on poor Jason Campbell. At the very least he deserves a year with a real offensive line and this core of young but talented receivers. But the much bigger issue is, Snyder never gives a coach enough years. Gibbs only got the time he got during his second tenure because his name is Joe Gibbs, plus he retired again before Snyder got the chance to fire him. If he was some former college coach (Spurrier) he would have had at least a season less to work with. The biggest mistake for me was not giving Marty one more year. He went 0-8 and then 8-0. Has that ever happened before? I think the world deserved to see what happened the next year. Could he have flipped it and won 8 then lost 8?

The tough thing for the Skins though is that's it's just so much tougher to gut and rebuild a football team. There are so many X-Factors and so many potentials for injury that luck is certainly a part of success.

And that leaves the sad sad Wiz. Their current core of players (and I include Gil) were the most successful of my life. Look at their record over the years. They had one playoff season between the time I was 5 and the time I was 20, and even then they were roadkill to the Bulls in the first round. Theoretically Caron and Antwan should be able to carry the team, but recent history has shown that the Wizards are only decent with all three big names healthy, and even then they can't beat Cleveland in the first round ever. So without a doubt they should trade everything they can now, get rid of the big names, plus Blatche and Stevenson, and start over as much as humanly possible. The pieces currently in place will never win, and they can still get some cents on the dollar with wise trading.

Standing Down (The Glorious Failure of John Ozkirbas)

Last week, B. Graham posted her explanation for the female fascination with (not necessarily) flamboyant foot-wear. An immediate reaction (mine included) was to compare this feminine obsession to something, for the most part, considered more masculine - suits. 

Of course! There are immediate parallels between the feelings B. Graham spoke of and the attraction to a well tailored, finely spun, streamlined set of threads. To my dismay, however, this comparison ultimately falls flat on its face when compared to the near religious fervor, dedication, and drug-like dependance encompassing an American woman's relationship with shoes. Apparently, men used to have a similar (although, not completely congruent) partnership with ties. But, the world has pressed on towards the casual, leaving the poor necktie dangling limply in the wind, hurt and abandoned  - like that annoying friend of whom you can only stand in specific, rare contexts. Confused, torn, and obsessed with dualism, I set out on a personal journey to discover man-culture's shoe-equivalent.

I barreled recklessly down a major highway, as my '60-something Chevy Impala roared in frightful dissonance, and lit a cuban cigar the size of the New York City skyline in search of satisfaction. I swung a baseball bat, went to the gym, wore a hat, grilled a steak, carved some poultry, peed in public, downed an entire fifth of whiskey, got a gun and went shooting, wrote a short-story drenched in naturalism, fist-fought with a stranger, climbed an active volcano, rescued a baby from a burning building, shaved my beard off and grew it back, got a tattoo and had it removed, read Jason's entire comic book collection, pulled off a heist at a nearby bank, got a job, climbed to the top of the corporate ladder, and fired everyone, memorized a Hemmingway novel, built an entire car by myself, went to jail and was let out on good behavior, dueled a fellow with swords, got married, then divorced, killed a man and bragged about it, conceived a child and raised it to adulthood, became a pro-quarterback and quit, earned one million dollars and blew it all on leisure suits and Vegas, developed cancer just to beat it with shear will-power, started a conflict with a neighboring country, detonated a WMD just to see what would happen, committed seppuku out of familial shame, and rose again just in time for class on Monday.

Apparently, when I blow up a WMD it flips off the world

...And, all of that is a complete lie (aside from carving up some poultry). But, it demonstrates the power of verbs, which is actually fairly relevant when addressing this issue. Because, whereas women are very much conditioned to look pretty and accessorize, men are, instead, conditioned to do things. And that may well explain why there is no "shoe-equivalent."

It's no secret. Look at advertising - ads are the perfect window for everything society expects you to do/be. Children's ads are the best - they'll lay out everything in clear, concise wording meticulously chosen to ensure that kids and parents alike can understand them. Boy ads involve props, tools, toys that move, and active verbs like "play," "run," "chase," and, "hit." Girl adds involve smiling, jewelry, sitting around, and passive verbs like, "sit," "dream," and "wait." Watch out for Halloween ads for children - they're a treat to behold. Our world is a giant play-zone.

So, we do things and, therefore, you'll find separate "types" of guys (which often blend together) who share at least similar-styled obsessions:

Hat Guy - He'll always be wearing one, possibly owning many

Sports Guy - A rabid "sports fan" who watches Sports Center constantly

Comic Book Guy - He not only loves comic books, but he'll keep them wrapped (and he'll know which ones are worth the wrapping)

Gun Guy - He collects guns. Or, has one he always talks about. 

The Boyfriend - Only does things with his girlfriend. And, when she's not around, she's all he talks about

The Gym Buff - He takes his protein shake to-go and measures and tabs his biceps daily

The Drinker - His pride is in his drinkin', his feats're many, and you've 'eard all o' them 'bout 47 times

Martial Arts Dude - Backflips, Nunchukus, and Tae Kwon Do. Any spare chance he gets. Even at inappropriate times.

Book-Worm Guy - He's always reading. And he's read everything.

The Starving Artist - His 9-5 is not his "job." His real job is living in the moment and watching indie flicks.

The Casanova - He's constantly talking and bragging about his sex-life, even when you know he's on a cold streak. 

... the list goes on and they're not exclusive to one sex. But, then again, neither are shoes and suits. These "types" are pervasive, demonstrating completely that the world is our figurative playground. But, it forces me to concede defeat - that there isn't just one male equivalent to shoes. And I stand down my search, bow my head in shame, and admit:

It might be sex with us. That might be the one thing most guys will obsess over and pursue relentlessly.

I once heard a guy from somewhere say:

"Anything great anyone has ever done was for sex" - Anon.

That's very stereotypical, freudian, and simplistic. Boiling down all human behavior to ungratified, sexual impulses is something I generally contest. Why can by demonstrated by something said by one of my favorite teachers:

"Here's why Freud always 'wins.' Anything deeper than it is wide will always be phallic. And anything wider than it is deep will always be vaginal" - Verlyn Flieger

It's just too simple and easy. I, also, don't want to corner the market around sex as male only. It's a given - men are conditioned to want and have sex, where women are "supposed" to not want sex, but have it anyway (you should shift a little on the inside). But, that's breaking down, too. Slowly.

So here's my concession. In all of it's glory and splendor. I lose. Faceless abstract concept, you win again. Last time it was about holograms and the universe. This time, it's about shoes.