Block-buster or block-busted?

I work part-time at a distribution center (read: warehouse) for Blockbuster Online. Although it's not physically demanding work, there's nothing all that great about the job. It doesn't pay much, it's boring and repetitive and mindless, and there's no air conditioning (the thermometer hit 92 yesterday, and it's only going to go higher). There just isn't anything inherently exciting about standing and sweating and sticking labels and stuffing envelopes, alliteration notwithstanding.

It should be no surprise, then, that a lot of people don't have a good time at work. People come in looking like they backed over their dog on the way in, complaining about management like they're actually working to make the job more miserable, and feeling like the whole world is conspiring against them.

And who can blame them? Their job really isn't particularly satisfying, and their lives outside of work are pretty tough, too. The place is full of single moms struggling to collect child support, single dudes struggling to work two jobs to pay child support, and night-school students struggling to cram 36 hours of life into each 24.

Some people, however, come in every day with a genuine smile. Their dogs are still alive, management is just trying to get the work done as efficiently as possible, and the world is spinning around because that's how we get gravity. And you know what? They also are single parents, working two jobs, and night-school students.

Happy at Blockbuster and unhappy at Blockbuster. What makes the difference between these two types of people? This much I can tell you for sure -- it's nothing that having a "better" job would fix; proof of that is sitting right next to them.

Losing for losing, too

This might be a long one.

Let's start out with a word of explanation. I grew up in South Dakota. "We" had no professional sports teams, and so there was no real "home" team or city to root for (Minnesota/Minneapolis was as close as you could come, but it was both across state lines and 5-6 hours away [Minneapolis]). It's South Dakota, though, so there was really nothing else to do and sports became a big deal nonetheless. Who did "we" root for? Whoever we wanted. There WERE a good deal of Minnesota fans, but it was considered "fair" to chose whatever team you wanted. Using baseball as an example, I can name you people in my class (of less than 100 total) who were fans of the Twins, Mets, Cubs, Reds, Red Sox, Astros, Royals, Yankees, or Braves. What was NOT considered "fair," however, was to jump from team to team. Loyalty is a big deal to me, you see. My wife might gain 50 pounds, but she'll still be my wife. The spiciest tart in Louisville might bat her eyelashes, lean in suggestively, and whisper "I'LL bring you to the metaphorical Super Bowl, baby!" and as impressed as I'll be with her choice of words, I'm just not going to suit up. My heart belongs to another, and as Christopher Lambert taught us, there can be only one. That's the same way I feel about "my" sports teams, except that while my wife's still hot, it seems like all my teams have -- how shall we say -- REALLY "let themselves go."

Here's the most recent Ho-ho down the hatch -- last night's NBA draft lottery. Now like many of you, I'm not the NBA fan that I once was. I haven't actually watched a Celtics game in a couple of years, partly because the game's just not that engaging in the regular season, partly because they've been terrible, and partly because I don't have cable and the bad teams are never on network tv. That said, yesterday bore the promise of a return to significance for my boys, if only because they'd been so bad. They had the 2nd worst record, which gave them the 2nd best chance at the 1st or 2nd draft pick. The overwhelming consensus is that there are 2 absolute franchise-changing studs in the draft, and so 1 or 2 would have been HUGE, anything out of the top two is failure -- especially when you "deserve" the #2 spot. So what happens? The ping-pong balls conspire against the leagues proudest franchise and we land at #5. As the saying goes, we can't win for losing. We would have even taken 2nd for losing and called it a win, but no dice.

Now no matter what the media tells you, there's really NO "sure thing" in any kind of draft. We won't know what happens until the actual draft, and even then you can't REALLY evaluate what you have until a couple years later. Check out these examples: in '95 Joe Smith was taken at #1, and Kevin Garnett was #5. Armon Gilliam was a #2 pick when Scottie Pippen was taken #5. In 1989 Pervis Ellison and Danny Ferry were taken #'s 1 and 2, respectively! Kwame Brown and Michael Olowokandi are relatively recent #1 picks who just haven't produced; Keith Van Horn and Shawn Bradley were both #2 picks that didn't live up to expectations. Dwayne Wade was a #5 overall selection, Amare Stoudemire was taken #9, and Kobe Bryant slid all the way to #13! Yes, even my Celtics have themselves struck luck when Paul Pierce fell into their laps at #10 in 1998. So the lottery in itself isn't the end-all, be-all of remaining in NBA obscurity, but one stroke of bad luck never is. What it IS, however, is one more in an ever-elongating line of stomach-punches that has started to feel like a flogging for real.

Check some of this out. I'm a fan of the Detroit Lions, the Boston Celtics, the Philadelphia Phillies, and the Phoenix Coyotes. All different cities for different sports. None of them have won a championship since the Celtics in '86. What if, rather than cheering for one team from each city, I had picked one of those cities and ponied up with all of their teams?

Detroit: The Lions have won exactly 1 playoff game since the AFL was assimilated into the NFL and the Super Bowl was born. Recent history has been particularly painful, with the last 6 seasons producing a cumulative record of 24-72 with the highlight being 6-10 in '04. Wow. Three times in there, teams have won as many or more games IN THE POST-SEASON than the Lions have won in the 16-game regular season, and going along with the "losing for losing, too" theme, not once in that time did they even manage to slide into the #1 draft slot. In fact, their worst year, 2-14 in '01, they picked THIRD because the expansion Houston Texans were automatically awarded the #1 spot, and Carolina (yep, the same Carolina team that was in the Super Bowl a couple years ago) was bad enough to steal Julius Peppers at #2. Through all of this, however, I maybe could have handled the Lions perennially moribund ways if I'd have been able to cheer Detroit to: NBA championships in '89, '90, and '04 (sure, it would have cost my eternal soul to cheer on a team with Bill "I won't even write his last name", but how about '04, when the Finals MVP was a draft choice of the Celtics?), Stanley Cups Championships in '97, '98, and '02, and the World Series in '84. In other words, everybody wins in Detroit . . . except my team.

Philadelphia: No team in professional sports history has lost as many games as the Philadelphia Phillies. Seriously. They won a World Series in '80 (when I was 4), but not since. They haven't even been to the playoffs since '93, when Joe "I won't even write his last name" apparently set the franchise back13 years and counting with one fell swing. Recently, however, they've missed the playoffs by 1 game (out of 162!) in '05, 2 games in '01, and 3 games in '06 (they actually won MORE regular season games than the eventual World-Champion Cardinals). My only "solace" on this one is that none of the Eagles, Flyers, or Sixers have won championships either, but ALL THREE have been to the respective championships of their sports since '93.

Boston: The Celtics remain the greatest franchise in NBA history, and are actually the closest thing to a real "bright spot" over most of my pro sports-fan life. The only professional championship I remember winning was when they won the Finals in '86. More recently, we all *thought* they were going to the Finals (to get killed, but still!) in '02 before the Nets suddenly buried them, and they actually won their division as recently as the '04-'05 season, although they failed to win a playoff series. They are currently terrible, however, and don't seem to be moving forward at all. Yesterday's lottery gave a real chance for real hope, but the literal worst-case-scenario happened and they're left with #5. Of course, their recent (defined as within my memory) highest draft picks turned out as follow: Chauncy Billups as #3 overall was given up on and traded in the middle of his rookie year, only to turn into a Finals MVP in Detroit. Len "I won't even write his last name" was a #2 pick who died from a drug overdose hours after being selected. And, in keeping with the theme, #2 is as "high" as we've climbed. Losing for losing, too. Other Boston teams, however, have actually won for winning -- note the Patriots in '02, '04, and '05, as well as the Red Sox in '04.

Phoenix: Between the league shutting down for a year, moving from Minnesota to Kentucky, and "cheering" for a basically irrelevant team, I'm not nearly the hockey fan that I once was. That said, it was the Coyotes '99 playoff defeat to the Blues (I'd say that I won't even write their last names, but they all look like Norwegian black metal bands that I'd never get right, anyway) that brought me closer to swearing off sports forever than any other single event. Speaking of playoff defeats, the Winnipeg/Phoenix franchise hasn't won a playoff series since I became a hockey fan (although they HAVE blown 2 separate 3 games to 1 series leads), and the Coyotes haven't even been in the playoffs since the '01-'02 season, which is also the last time they finished the season at or over .500. Now Phoenix sports haven't exactly been blowing the roof off of the town during this period either, but the Diamondbacks did pick themselves up some rings in '01, if you recall.

All right, that was painful. Did you read all of it? If so, why? Do you feel like putting yourself out of your misery right now? Or how about putting ME out of MY misery? Hey -- don't bother with it -- sure I'm whining, but as I mentioned back at the start, my REAL wife is still hot!

Thinking for yourself -- overrated?

This post may not be a very popular way to start out a blog, but so be it. It's not like I have any readers to lose, right?

I had a conversation with a guy this week who spat out a load of various opinions and theories mixed with ample evidence of nearly complete ignorance about that which he spoke. Of course it was all spoken with great confidence and would have sounded great if you didn't know any better, but the dude simply didn't have his readily available facts together. Then he ended with the ever-popular "I like to think for myself." After all, who's ever heard somebody say "I like to let others do my thinking for me"? Not me.

Here's where things that sound great in theory meet with trouble in reality, however. What if I "think for myself" but am wrong? Would it have been better to simply take the word of somebody that knew more than I did? If I try to "think for myself" on starting my car, I won't quickly determine that it will start up if I push in the clutch and turn the key. That makes no sense at all to me! If I try to "think for myself" on blogging, there's NO WAY that I'll determine that you, wherever you are, will be able to read what I type into my computer here in my office. It seems to me to defy the well-established (not by me!) laws of physics. I also think it's hilarious when I go to a hardcore show and the bands always tell people to think for themselves. What if somebody says, "Oh yeah -- that's a good idea -- I'll start doing that." How funny is that!

Obviously these are extreme examples, but hopefully you get the point. Statements that begin with "I don't see why management would . . ." usually reflect a lack of managerial understanding more than a gift for critical thinking. "I can't see a reason why . . ." is more likely evidence that you don't have all the information than a case-closed argument for no reason existing.

Look, I'm ALL about critical thinking. I think it's GREAT to ask good questions and seek understanding. But is it too much to actually ask the questions and find out if legitimate answers exist before we take our half-baked "understanding" and go off to exercise our ability to "think for ourselves"? I don't know . . . what do you think?

Self-important or user-friendly?

I've long been conflicted about blogs. On the one hand, they're a great way to vent, process, and self-reflect. They also present a fantastic forum to allow your friends and family (as well as the occasional stranger/stalker) to keep up with your life at their own pace and convenience. After all, it sure beats mass e-mails that people either have to feel obligated to read or feel guilty deleting, right?

On the other hand, however, don't they seem just a bit self-important? Really, why would I think that anybody would be interested in what I put up on a blog? Isn't it REALLY just so that people can feel important and harbor illusions about untold thousands fawning over their brilliance? And, for better or worse, I'm *just* self-aware enough to know that I have a strong natural bent to self-absorption anyway.

Anyway, probably both of the above factor into my decision to toss my proverbial hat into the blogging world, although the bigger reasons belong to a completely different realm. The good news that matters to you, of course, is that unlike an actual flogging, you possess the power to determine how much of this you endure. As a hospital administrator once quipped, "Aren't you the lucky one!"