The Curse of the Doppelganger

Friends,

[Disclaimer: it will be important for you to know that I'm totally fine with the way I look. I'm confident in who I am. Any stories I tell and jokes I make are in good humor and meant to entertain. But still, learn what you can, people.]

We all like to think that the little storylines in our lives are epic. That our crises are the stuff of legends. That our banter with our best friends is Gilmorian. One day the laughable words come out of our mouths: "They should make a movie of my life."

This, of course, gets the wheels turning about who would play us (and all the other key players in our legendary lives) in our movie. This celebrity looks like me, but this one has my personality, etc. We brainstorm about the best actors to portray our friends, enemies, and frenemies. And that's fine; don't get me wrong, those conversations are fun. Just one thing...

Don't put me in your movie.

You should be played by Poop-Face!
As far as I know, there's no celebrity named Poop-Face; but if there is, someone has likened him to me.

It's always fun that first moment when someone says, "You look JUST LIKE so-and-so!!" But I've found that in my experience, these words echo off the mountains of self-image and trigger an avalanche of despair.

It started in high school, when a girl told me I looked just like one of her friends. She even had a yearbook picture of the dude to prove to me the uncanny resemblance. I of course don't have an actual photo of the guy, but if my memory serves (and I think you'll see it does), he looked something like this:

But he was voted most likely to succeed!

Then I got to college. My Psych 101 TA was obsessed with the idea that I looked like a guy on a reality TV show. I didn't watch the show and didn't know what the guy looked like, but I had learned my lesson in high school-- just smile, say, "Ok, cool," and walk away. 

But alas, this TA was both a bad teacher of and a bad example of psychology, and she insisted that the similarity was so remarkable that it warranted a picture to be brought up on the projector screen. The celebrity was Mikey from American Choppers and this (left) is more or less what he looked like in 2003.

Now, ironically, as I've gotten bigger and beardier and he's gotten smaller and beardier over the years, we now do look pretty similar. But during my freshmen year, when I was going through my (awesome [don't argue with me]) phase of growing out my hair, our long blonde hair was the only resemblance.

I'll spare you the details of the many other times people have cut me to the core with their confidence that they'd found my doppelgangers. But I'll give you the most recent one, because it's what reminded me to blog about this and is probably the most horrendous cruelty of all. A guy recently asked me if I'd ever been told I look like fantasy author George R.R. Martin. "No," I said, "probably because no one knows what that guy looks like."

But the guy talking to me had the last laugh, because moments later I looked up the novelist on Wikipedia to find this:

Oh yeah! Back to imaginary movie-casting. Here's the challenge of trying to cast me-- I'm big, burly, bearded, bear-like, betc., and there just aren't really any actors who get famous looking like that. So it's hard to find a well-known actor who looks anything like me. This usually creates a funny moment, though, when people are rattling off look-alikes for others in machine gun style then get to me and furrow their brow. Maybe they've taken a break from the game to ponder the implications of time travel.

There are only two guys ever suggested for me: Zach Galifianakis and Kevin James. The former because he has a full beard and the latter, I think, because he's the largest famous actor since Chris Farley. I don't take offense to either one, but given how dissimilar I actually look to Kevin James, it does sort of smack of "you're both fat."

Both of those guys are hilarious, though, so it could be worse.

Okay, fine, let's play
But again, I insist we leave out Poop-Face


Who would you want to play YOU in a movie?

Jon

My Top 5 Pixar Movies

Friends,

There are many types of movies, and I love most of them. Chick flicks, sci-fi, mysterious spy movies starring Matt Damon, baseball movies... I like almost every movie. One genre I've never really loved is documentaries (though I always appreciate a good mockumentary), mainly because they're slow-paced and about real stuff. But one pretty awesome documentary was The Pixar Story, mainly because it was about the inception of a brand-new movie genre-- CGI-animated features. [For the record, I actually meant the plain old usage of 'inception', not some crazy animation within an animation within an animation.]

Pixar has cranked out some amazing movies in its 17 year run at feature films. In fact, narrowing this list down to five was extremely difficult, and I had to leave off a movie that had me literally crying in the first 20 minutes.



Pixar-ception
If I made this a list within a list within a list, I wonder if you'd agree

5. Monsters, Inc. (2001)
I've always loved this movie. Maybe it's because I'm a man, and thus used to be a boy, and boys love monsters. Maybe it's because Billy Crystal's voice takes me back to a simpler time when I was 5-10 years old watching movies I was too young to understand. Maybe it's because of the uncanny resemblance my friend Hannah and I bear to Sully and Boo.


I'm the big one.

4. Finding Nemo (2003)
This, along with the next movie on this list, is one of those movies that, if you explained the plot without my actually watching it, I would roll my eyes and make fun of it. An overprotective fish loses his gimpy fish son and travels across an ocean, aided by a fish with no long-term memory, to find him. I'm rolling my eyes just reading that. But kudos to Pixar for adding in enough delightful sharks, sea turtles, and birds to make this a funny, touching, epic adventure.

3. Ratatouille (2007)
Once again, just a ludicrous premise: a rat who loves to cook finds a way to do it by hiding in an incompetent human chef's hat and controlling him via his hair. Typing that, I feel like I'm playing Beyond Balderdash and inventing a plot synopsis for something like Mmm, Tastes Like Cheese! or Who Let the Rat Out of the Hat? But this movie actually works really well, probably because of the relatability of how one's dreams can seem so far out of reach.

2. The Incredibles (2004)
Two words: super heroes. Sixty-one more words: like the awesome WB->CW classic Smallville, the appeal of this movie to me is the examination of what it might actually be like to be super. How would a family function if its parents were super heroes and its children were developing powers? And of course, there's plenty of action when awesomely lame (or lamely awesome?) villain Syndrome hits the scene.

1. Toy Story 1 & 3 (1995, 2010; I never saw the second one)
I wanted to put this somewhere else on the list because it's 'the obvious choice.' Isn't it funny how we want to do that? We want to say the best Weezer album is Maladroit or that Thanksgiving is our favorite holiday. There's something about being original or rogue that appeals to us so much that we would ignore the facts right in front of us. Woody. Buzz. That awesome race car. These characters are classics, and when the sequels are only made every 5 years, they don't get old.

Honorable mention: Up (2009) [Awesome movie. Just couldn't find room for it on the list.]

Dishonorable mention: WALL-E (2008) [Worst Pixar movie ever. The middle 40 minutes of the film almost put me to sleep several times. Maybe I'm too picky, but I like my movies to have words. Spoken words that form dialogue between characters. Most fans of the movie like to point out that the robot is really cute. Sure. That's somehow not enough.]

Your turn!
Given my obsession with your participation, I may need to develop comment-ception

Where have I gone horribly wrong?
What's your top Pixar movie(s)?

Jon

A Tale of Two Disneys

A lot of us have never been parents.  Including myself.  As a non-parent, I accept certain ideas without scrutiny, or really even a moment's hesitation.  For instance, in general I have faith in Disney to provide children with harmless and generally positive messages.

But when you become a parent (many thanks to my friend Corey for becoming a parent and then inspiring this entire blog post), you have to watch very closely what everything in culture is actually saying, because you are responsible for your children.  And so you develop the skill and discipline of watching things critically -- a skill and discipline we all should have and be exercising.

As I recently thought about this (with Corey's help), kid's movies and TV shows send all kinds of mixed messages, many of them bad.  As an example, let's closely examine two cherished classics.

Case 1: The Little Mermaid

I'll admit up front that I haven't watched either of these in a long time.  But -- and this is all the more reason to watch things critically -- the plots seem to stay with us forever.  And so, here's at least the gist of the plot:

1. Ariel is a mermaid princess.  As such, she is relegated to the sea and has certain royal responsibilities.
2. Ariel becomes fascinated with human culture and longs to be a part of that world.
3. Her father realizes this and forbids her from interacting with humans or investigating human things.
4. Ariel makes a bargain (for her soul) to the most disturbing Disney villain ever, in which she gains human legs for a time.
5. Ariel falls in love with a human pirate (jk, he was probably a prince) and they get married.
6. Ariel's father repents of his... decision?... and blesses the marriage.

But of course we, as children of all sizes and ages, put ourselves in the place of the protagonist (nevermind that it's a female fish-girl hybrid).  So what does LM say to and about me?

To me, it says my parents will sometimes make rules that I don't agree with.  When this arises, I should see disobeying their rules in favor of following my own passions as a viable, if not outright best, option.

Was King Triton's rule unreasonable (not that that's even the point)?  No.  If humans were to actually find mermaids, it would mean unending torture for the mermaid race.  But it doesn't matter how solid the parenting is -- it stands in the way of what Ariel wants.  And so, disobey.

That's ultimately the flow of this movie -- passion; parental rule that prevents that passion; disobedience of that rule; ultimate happiness (and even the parent changing his mind, as if to say, "You were right all along, even considering the fact that you sold your soul to a ghoulish octopus-woman.")

Now maybe to some people this message doesn't seem bad, but from the Biblical perspective from which I see things, this plot is garbage.  Children are commanded to obey and honor their parents.  This doesn't involve judging every rule the parents give and choosing which ones are in line with your heart's desires.  Additionally, as our heavenly Father, God gives us rules for our own good (e.g. "do not be sexually immoral"), and they at times conflict with passions we may feel.

Grade (on my subjective scale with no guidelines given): F


Case 2: The Lion King

1. There is a king who has a son and a brother.
2. The brother greedily wants the crown, so he kills the king and runs off the prince.
3. The prince then grows up on the outskirts of the kingdom and learns a philosophy of laziness and self-indulgence.
4. An old friend tracks him down and (amid lion sparks flying) convinces him to embrace his responsibility and right his uncle's wrongs.
5. The prince returns, defeats the evil imposter king, and restores peace to the land.

How different is this message?!  What this one suggests to me for my life is that it will always be easier to do nothing and just focus on pleasing myself.  But, while harder, doing the right thing, being responsible, and challenging injustice are all worth it.

[Furthermore, these are not only things that God explains in the Bible that we should do, but they're also actions He takes throughout history.]

So when I'm playing Playstation, watching Netflix, eating ice cream, and humming "Hakuna Matata," in the absence of a female lion to snap me out of my senses, I can exhort myself to do something that matters.  Thanks, LK.

Meaningless grade: A


Please chime in (graciously)

I know some of you probably love Disney princess movies.  I'm sorry.  That being said...

What do you think about the messages of kids' movies?
Do you agree with my grades?
For which other movies would you like to see a critical worldview analysis?

Jon

Typecast

Sorry it's been a while, friends.  Life has been a little crazy.  Before we begin today's tangent, there are a couple housekeeping items.  I need more topics!  As you can see on the Interactive Pool of Topics page, there aren't too many left in the queue.  Please give me your suggestions.  Also, check out these alternate views of the blog.

Long ago, D-Rod suggested I blog about the typecasting of Ben Affleck.  The main problem with this is that Ben directed the awesome movie Gone Baby Gone.  This officially made me a "Ben Affleck fan," and as such I cannot publicly criticize any of his work.  But the suggestion has made me think about typecasting.  It's real.  It's worth a tangent.


The most typecast actors

1. Matthew McConaughey

Without a doubt, to me, the actor most obviously pigeonholed into the same role is Matthew McConaughey.

Now, there are plenty of Matthew's movies I haven't seen (in addition to being a typecast actor, I think he's a bad actor).  But in most of the ones I have seen, he's the same dude.  For example:

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
Two for the Money
Failure to Launch
Ghost of Girlfriends Past
(I've never seen Fool's Gold, but obviously)

In each one of these movies, he plays some immature, womanizing, success-or-adventure-obsessed character who over the course of the movie grows a conscience and/or an appreciation for monogamy.  Seriously, same character every time.


2. Jennifer Aniston

I know this might infuriate longtime Friends fans and Angelina-haters, but seriously.  Anytime Jennifer Aniston appears on screen, she plays Rachel Green, which is probably to say (I don't actually know her), she plays herself.  Can you think of any role she's played in which you weren't expecting her to cross the hall and meet up with Chandler and Joey?  (For that matter, the whole cast of the show sort of permanently settled into their characters, I think.  Though I liked Matthew Perry in Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.)


3. Michael Cera

This would seem to violate the "don't publicly criticize a person of whom you're a fan" rule (catchy name, right?), except that I am officially no longer a Michael Cera fan.  Don't get me wrong.  I love Arrested Development.  I love Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.  But after seeing the atrocious Year One and the trailer for the atrocious-looking Youth in Revolt, I have ditched the fan status.  And thus I'm free to say that Michael Cera plays the same role in everything he does.


4. Jason Statham

This guy plays awesome roles in awesome movies.  But Handsome Rob, the Transporter, and all his other roles (though he's less suave and invincible in Snatch) are basically just one and the same awesome b.a. guy with a cool accent.


5. Seth Rogen

It's somewhat embarrassing to say, but I like Seth Rogen movies.  I like his character in all of them.  It reminds me of a stoned, somewhat idiotic version of myself.


Concluding remarks

This list isn't necessarily a knock on these people as actors.  If I were an actor and people kept offering me jobs that just happened to all be pretty much the same the role, I'd keep taking them.  Especially if it was the role of a brilliant but surprisingly approachable and charming dude who ends up saving the world and getting the girl.

But it is more impressive when an actor can take on a variety of vastly different roles.  Some people who come to mind for this distinction -- Brad Pitt, Russell Crowe, Charlize Theron, Dustin Hoffman, and Matt Damon.

Other who could have made the typecast list -- Zooey Deschanel.  That's all I got.


Add to the list(s)

Who else do you think are the most predictable or versatile actors?

Was I wrong about anyone above?

Jon

Dreamers only

I think it's a little weird that we use the word "dream" to mean a hope or aspiration ("I have a dream...", "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas"), or the bizarre phenomenon that sometimes happens in which, while sleeping, our minds experience miscellaneous sensations and try to make sense of them ("I had a dream where I was a turtle", "I can't remember my dream from last night, but I know I had one").

I guess it's not that weird, since each definition deals with envisioning things that are not actual, current realities.

Anyway, this tangent is not about definitions, and it's not about reaching for the stars.  It's about the fun and mystery of having dreams while we sleep.  Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia (and greatest tangent generator ever), says that "the content and purpose of dreams are not yet understood, though they have been a topic of speculation and interest throughout recorded history."  Let's speculate.

Some of the greatest features of the dream experience

Flying
I have had dreams with two different types of flying.  One that's just swimming in the air and one that is legitimate, awesome, Superman-like soaring.  The rare dream that lets me race through the air high above the city is basically the jackpot of all dreams.

Dream within a dream
This doesn't only happen in Inception.  [Mini-tangent: man, that movie was good.]  On a few occasions I have been dreaming, then "woken up" into another dream in which I'm in bed, musing about the original dream.  Then when I wake up into real life, I have about 15 seconds of existential terror during which I hug myself and question what is real.

Lucid dreaming
This doesn't only happen in Vanilla Sky.  [Mini-tangent: man, that movie was bizarre and mediocre.]  Sometimes something so outlandish will happen in a dream that I will think to myself, "This is a dream."  If it's a nightmare, I'll then will myself to wake up (which usually works).  Other times, I decide to take over. 

One great example of this is a dream I had a few years back in which my campus minister revealed he was a Satanist and tried to coerce me to join his dark ways.  As I ran away from him in slow motion (for some reason, dreams force you to flee from life-threatening situations as if you're running through syrup), I realized I was dreaming.  So I took over the dream, turned around, and started shooting blasts of light out of my hands at him and basically vaporized him.


Some other notable dreams I've had

• Many nightmares in which I'm about to go onstage to perform in a play but have no idea what play I'm in or who my character is.
• The common dream in which my teeth are loose and seemingly about to fall out.
• Some great celeb crush dreams: in elementary school, one in which Kelly Kapowski was in my backyard and I was working up the guts to tell her I liked her; in high school, one glorious dream in which Mandy Moore was my girlfriend.

Let's do an Inception "shared dream" thing

Sadly, that technology doesn't exist.  But definitely tell me about your favorite dream features and the craziest dreams you've ever had!

Jon

Can a man and a woman be friends?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: the rest of this post.

In 1989, when I was busy scoring goals in the wrong net for my indoor soccer team, a wonderful chick flick called When Harry Met Sally hit theaters.  Years later, I would see the movie many times and marvel at its awesome dialogue.

In the film, Harry claims that "men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way."  Now, I'm assuming that many of my readers come from the same place as me culturally -- the Christian subculture -- so you can feel free to delete the sex part.  With this edit in mind, I present to you my thesis:


Men and women can't be friends because the [physical attraction/desire to date] part always gets in the way.

Interestingly, just as Sally in the movie vehemently refutes Harry's claim, most women reject it when I make it.  But I'm not as mean or daring as Harry, so the conversation never takes the same direction that it did in the film:

Harry: ...men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally: That's not true.  I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry: No you don't.
Sally: Yes I do.
Harry: No you don't.
Sally: Yes I do.
Harry: You only think you do.

Bam!  Harry tells it like it is, leaving tact back at the beginning of their road trip.  But is he right?  I say that he is, and for the same reason he ultimately gives -- the various types of attraction that make opposite-sex friendships appealing ultimately doom them.

Suppose John and Jane meet.  What will inspire them to begin a romantic relationship?  Mutual physical and personality (including values, interests) attraction.  What will inspire them to begin a friendship?  Mutual personality attraction.  So, for a guy-girl platonic friendship, without a one-sided romantic pining to exist, we would need a man and woman who are attracted to each other's personality, but not their appearance.

What I'm basically saying is that this doesn't exist.  Most people are attracted to a great host of people, so good luck finding a guy and girl pairing in which neither is physically attracted to the other.  Even if you DID find this, there's the principle that "the more you get to know and appreciate someone's personality, the more physically attractive the person becomes to you."  So, as a friendship deepens over time, romantic feelings inevitably develop (see When Harry Met Sally's plot).


Many unfortunate consequences

You might be thinking (especially if you're a woman) that this isn't true.  You might even be thinking of examples of opposite-sex friendships from your own life.  But let's return to Harry and Sally:

Harry: You only think you do [have men friends]... what I'm saying is, they all WANT to [have a romantic relationship with] you.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.

If nothing else, you have to admire the characters' advanced debate techniques.

This is the tragic part of the above thesis... let's call it the Cursed Corollary: in every meaningful man-woman friendship, at least one of the people has romantic feelings for the other.

The wheels are probably starting to turn in your mind... yeah, that guy you are really good friends with totally platonically?  He likes you.  That girl you're always getting coffee with?  Admit it dude, you like her.  (It IS usually the guy who likes the girl, too, fyi.  We are just easily attracted, and you are very pretty.)

If any of you happens to be female and my friend... um.. please don't take this too much to heart.


Exceptions to every rule

I admit, there are some exceptions.  We have only been talking about single people so far, because it's too complicated to talk about people who are in relationships with other people.  So that could present some exceptions.  But the major exceptions are what I'm going to call "wedges," things that have wedged themselves between two people romantically.

A revised thesis, then, would read: Men and women without a sufficient wedge between them can't be friends, because the [romantic attraction] part always gets in the way.

What would these wedges be?  Anything that makes it abundantly clear to both parties that nothing romantic is going to happen between them.  The best example I can think of is the wedge named Chris between me and my long-time friend Amanda.  Chris and Amanda dated off-and-on for seven years, during which time Chris was my best friend. 

Even in their "off" times, it was very clear to me and Amanda that nothing would ever happen between us because of Chris's role in my life.  And, with that wedge firmly in place, we were able to have a fun, meaningful friendship during her stretches of singleness.

Other potential wedges: a vow of celibacy, a close blood relation, a huge age gap, a twisted social web of distrust/broken hearts/bitterness...


Let the comments fly

What do you think?  Can men and women be friends?

Jon

A Dude's Guide to Chick Flicks

There are other blogs out there dedicated to movie reviews, like this one by a colleague of mine.  I call him a colleague because we work for the same organization that employs over 27,000 people.  I've met him once.

Anyway, I don't have the time, inclination, or expertise to make a meaningful contribution to the field of cinema critique.  But there seems to be a lack of guys who are willing to stand up and call it like it is... in the world of chick flicks.

I've already written about my thoughts on the genre itself, so I will just stick to sharing my opinions about the best and the worst "rom coms" from a guy's perspective.  I will even have the audacity to speak to the entire male gender in the process.

The Top Five Chick Flicks for Dudes
(or, My Five Favorite Chick Flicks)


5. What Women Want

There are tons of reasons this makes the top 5:

• All guys have dreamed of being able to read women's minds, or for that matter, to understand them in any way.
• It reminds us of brighter days for Mel Gibson, who was once very cool.
• It juggles about 3 or 4 storylines at once, thus escaping the boring, predictable simplicity of most chick flicks.
• The movie is ultimately about Nick Marshall's growth, not their relationship.

4. You've Got Mail

You've Got Mail is by far the most typical movie on this list.  That's its biggest weakness -- a very typical, linear, predictable, yet unpleasantly unrealistic plot.  However, the great performances by Hanks and Ryan allow it to still be great, and then these drawbacks become a strength.  By virtue of its being a "typical chick flick," chicks like this flick.  Meaning you can enjoy it alongside a lady, should you be so lucky.


3. Forget Paris

As you'll see, the top 3 of this list share a lot in common.  Specifically, nonlinear plots and unpredictability.  Forget Paris is an excellent example of that, plus you get the bonus of Billy Cystal's awesomeness.  He plays an NBA ref, which is also sweet.  There are great interview snippets with old married couples throughout, a plot that jumps back and forth from past to present, and a great story of love's endurance.


2. (500) Days of Summer

This movie has pretty much everything going for it.  An awesome cast (seriously, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is rising toward the top of my man-crush list... I don't keep an actual list..), a great soundtrack, wonderful animation themes, a plot that skips around through time, but more than anything else, it is raw and honest.  This is what is missing from most rom coms, and the reason I think most guys hate them -- their picture of emotions and romance doesn't line up with our actual experiences.  But in this movie, it does.


1. When Harry Met Sally

This movie contains most of the features that I mentioned for the other 4 films.  On top of all those things, WHMS just contains awesome dialogue.  Any dude can be drawn into those conversations, particularly the debate about whether or not a man and woman can be friends.  And, for the record, the answer to that question is, "No."  [Perhaps than can get its own entry!]

Dishonorable Mention
(or, the Some of the Worst Chick Flicks for Dudes)

Sweet Home Alabama - tacky, predictable
A Walk to Remember - sad; too sad
The Notebook - I hate this movie on too many levels to describe briefly
Something's Gotta Give - don't EVER see this; naked old people
Mona Lisa Smile - by women, for women, about women

Men, I hope this is helpful.  Women, I hope this helps you understand how what we think about movies typically made for you...

What do you think about chick flicks?

Jon

 

Gone Baby Gone(?)

Welcome back, college football Saturdays.  Now that my roommate and I have ditched cable, my watching is limited.  I'll need to find important (read: WVU) games online, I guess.  In the meantime, I have time to kick off our series of tangents by asking what I consider to be one of the toughest ethical questions raised in a major motion picture: the Gone Baby Gone dilemma.

I will give a little background that will lead into the question:
[WARNING: YOU ARE ENTERING SPOILER CITY]

There is a girl with a really bad mother.  She's a single mom and is very negligent of the child.  She lives a life of partying and debauchery, and if I remember correctly, she has drug problems.  The girl has concerned and caring aunt and uncle; they try to help, but feel that as long as the girl lives with her mom, there's only so much they can do for her.

And so, a secret deal is struck between the uncle and the soon-to-retire chief of police.  He [the policeman] kidnaps the girl, retires, and starts a new life in which he and his wife lovingly raise the child in a scenic cabin somewhere, focusing solely on providing her with safety, affection, a "normal, happy childhood", etc.

After a while, the girl is declared dead.  But eventually a P.I., hired by the aunt or mom, discovers the cabin and sees the girl with her new "parents."  The P.I.'s girlfriend happens to be with him when he makes the discovery, and a debate ensues (that will ultimately end their relationship).

Thus, our dilemma.  Should the P.I. call the cops and report the kidnapping, or just go home and act like he never saw anything?

I could delve into the complexities of the issue, but I think you can do that yourself.  So instead, I'll share one of the reasons I find the question so fascinating -- people's answers are very different, and I've found that, of the people I've asked, it's split about 50/50.  It's always interesting to see how the opinions fall down gender lines, political lines, etc.

So I say we conduct a vote.  I've added a poll below where you can vote.  If you get a chance, comment what you'd do and explain why.  If nothing else, though, PLEASE vote in the poll below.

I'll take part, too.  Sometime in the next few days I'll write a comment and explain why I'm on the (rules-following, obey-all-authority) side I'm on.

Thanks for weighing in.  Enjoy college football.  Let's Go Mountaineers!

Jon