Twenty Minutes A Day

In order to free myself of creative paralysis, I have vowed to write for at least 20 minutes each day, about whatever comes to mind. In general, this will likely be in stream-of-consciousness style and could be a short story, an anecdote, a humor column, an observation or whatever comes to mind. It doesn't really matter what it is, just that it exist.

Overshadowed By Bolt

It’s rare these days that a track and field story penetrates the consciousness of U.S. sports fans, but Usain Bolt’s disqualification in the 100m final at the World Championships last weekend did just that. It clearly wasn’t the way the track world wanted to make headlines, but it was their stupid rule and Bolt’s undisciplined performance that made it happen, so as Tony Soprano would say, “Whatareyougonnado?”

Chances are, the IAAF will change the false start rule in time for next year’s Olympics and this whole episode will be largely forgotten.

The overlooked story in all this was the bronze medal-performance of Kim Collins, a 35-year-old from St. Kitts and Nevis.

Why was this interesting? For one thing, his age - 35 is pretty advanced for a sprinter. For another, he comes from St. Kitts and Nevis. Try finding that on a map.

Also, Collins retired two years ago, only to return to competition seven months ago - and picked up a world bronze medal.

But my favorite thing about Collins is that, for the past 10 years, he has pretty much run the same times. Just about every time he crosses the finish line, the scoreboard reads 10.07, give or take a tenth of a second.

In a sport where athletes mysteriously chop relative eons off their times, then equally mysteriously disappear, Collins has remained astonishingly consistent for more than a decade (when he won the 2003 world title, he finished in 10.07; last weekend he won bronze in 10.08; and he’s never gone faster than 9.98).

It doesn’t matter if it’s a huge race, if his competitors are juiced out of their gourds or if he has a rock in his shoe - Kim Collins is going to run around 10.07. Sometimes that gets him a gold medal, sometimes it gets him seventh place. The stakes and the competition doesn’t matter - Kim Collins just does his thing. And that’s pretty damn cool.

My Digital Media Divide

For more than a decade, I have largely consumed media via electronic means. Since graduating from college in 2001, I have never subscribed to the paper edition of a newspaper. I get my news from the Internet and television, I download and listen to podcasts, and I’m finding myself increasingly watching TV shows and live sports online as well.

The last bastion of print journalism consumption for me is magazines. I subscribe to four of them, all of which, it seems, come two or more days later than they did when I lived in New York.

This morning, as I downloaded the latest Sports Illustrated onto my iPad (while the print version, which arrived on Friday, sat untouched on my kitchen table), it occurred to me that as long as magazines make their full editions available to subscribers in electronic form, I have no need for print editions. Paper magazines cost more money, they waste resources and they clutter my apartment. I don’t know if any of the magazines I subscribe to offer the choice to opt out of receiving print editions, but I’m sure that day is coming soon.

This is no groundbreaking revelation or anything. But it did get me to think about how the print vs. electronic media divide has impacted my life on a more fundamental level.

In the spring of 1994, I did a week-long “externship” at The New Haven Register, which led to a summer internship there later that summer. I was 15 years old.

I worked in the sports department, following staff reporters to various games and events, learning how to be the only thing I had ever wanted be since I was seven years old: a newspaper man.

My time spent at the Register was fun, it was exciting and it has helped guide me through my career to this point - but not in the way you’d think.

Instead of my time there being a celebration of the written word, a glorious glimpse into the ink-stained history of the newspaper business, the strongest piece of advice came from Sports Editor Richard Lord, who told me in no uncertain terms:

“Don’t go into print journalism, Dan. It’s a dying industry. Go into electronic media. Save yourself before it’s too late!”

Okay, he didn’t say the last line. But the first part is true. And again, this was 1994, well before the Internet came along to hasten the destruction of print journalism’s business model.

As I moved on to high school and later college, I remembered Richard’s words but did not heed them - though I expanded my horizons to include radio in college, I still thought of myself primarily as a writer. I expected to get a job out of college as a newspaper writer, with the hope of eventually graduating to a magazine.

But in the spring of 2001, as my university days were coming to a close, I came face-to-face with the print vs. electronic media quandary. My attempts to catch on at any of the big newspapers in the Northeast had gone for naught (“Call us in five years when you have more experience,” wrote the sports editor from The Newark Star-Ledger), and I found myself with two post-graduate employment options:

Become an Olympic researcher for NBC in New York or write sports for The New Haven Register. Because of my childhood desire to be a writer, I gave the Register more consideration than perhaps most would, but Richard Lord’s advice definitely reverberated in my brain. And in June 2001, I started my first real job at 30 Rockefeller Plaza for NBC in New York City.

I’ve remained in television production for the past 10 years, and it seems like every year writing — or at least the kind of writing I thought I would be doing — becomes less integral in my daily work life. And that’s a shame.

Recently, I was out with my friend Noah, who transitioned about a year ago from television production into feature film writing. A man at the bar asked Noah what he did for a living, and Noah responded, “I’m a writer.” The man then asked me if I was a writer, and I said, “No.”

It was the first time I had ever responded to that question in the negative.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t question or doubt my decision to go into television over working for a mid-level newspaper, particularly since Richard Lord has proved prescient about the business of print journalism. (In fact, one of my mentors that summer of ‘94 was young sports reporter Seth Davis, who, despite writing for Sports Illustrated since 1995, now spends the vast majority of his time working in the digital and electronic worlds for si.com and CBS Sports.)

But there is a part of me that misses the challenge and fun of working on a long-form written piece. Maybe that’s what I’d be doing with my life had I taken the Register job, maybe not.

But I know this: if I were writing for a living, I’d rather download my articles and read them on my iPad than read them in print. You know, the clutter and all.

Clarence Clemons

“And last but not least. Do I have to say his name? Do I have to SPEAK his name? In this corner…king of the world…master of the universe…weighing in at 260 pounds…THE BIG MAN…CLARENCE CLEMONS!”

What to say about the Big Man that Bruce himself hasn’t already said? How can we mythologize someone who, in life, was already more myth than man? “Bigger than life” doesn’t do justice to Clarence’s size, his life story, and most importantly, the sound that came out of his horn. I mean, the guy’s autobiography was semi-fictional - but could anyone have really doubted that it all seemed not just possible but likely to have happened?

When I think back on my memories of Clarence, three stand out.

September 3, 1999
My second ever Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band concert. It was in Washington D.C., and I attended with my college roommate John Hyman (I had first become aware of John when we were freshmen and he was playing “Backstreets” on a piano outside our dining hall - it was an immediate bond).

After a quiet duet by Bruce and Patti on “Mansion on the Hill,” the stage lights went down at the MCI Center. Soon we heard the most mournful and haunting notes that one could imagine coming from Clarence’s tenor sax. It was the opening to a new arrangement of “The River” that I had never heard before, and it added a heartbreaking layer of mystery and dread to the song. It gave me chills. It still does.

October 4, 2003
The last show of “The Rising” tour at Shea Stadium. Aaron Cohen and I stood on the outfield of our beloved home stadium for an emotional night that ended Bruce and the band’s 14-month tour.

Clarence’s health had seemed to be deteriorating all year to the point that he was virtually immobile on stage - and he spent much of the shows seated on his Big Man stool. And when the band concluded the show and the tour with “Blood Brothers” - Bruce’s tribute to his bandmates - the giant video screen showed us the indelible image of Clarence’s face with tears streaming down his mighty cheeks.

I couldn’t help but feel that it was a moment of finality, and I remember turning to Aaron with a lump in my throat, saying, “I think this is the last time we’ll see Clarence on stage.”

Thankfully, I was completely wrong. The Big Man made it through more studio albums and two more massive tours - including a performance at the Super Bowl that will allow my friend Brian Hyland to die a happy man.

April 1, 2011
My most unexpected Big Man sighting. My dad and I went to Opening Day of the baseball season at Sun Life Stadium in Miami to see the Mets play the Marlins. I had no advance warning that Clarence would be playing the national anthem, so I was thrilled when they announced his name over the PA system.

With the Marlins lined up to his left and the Mets lined up to his right, Clarence blew a beautiful rendition of the national anthem (though unfortunately for me, it inspired his hometown Marlins to victory).

But the elation I felt while Clarence played was soon tinged with sadness as I watched him leave the field - he could barely walk. The body that had been slowly betraying him for years seemed to be in worse shape than ever.

He wouldn’t make it another three months. Six days ago he suffered a stroke. Today he died.

Clarence’s passing is a huge loss to all of us who love Bruce’s music. But mainly I just feel badly for Bruce right now. It’s hard to imagine what it will be like for him the first time he takes the stage without his brother.

Empathy

We all deal with losses, setbacks, all sorts of impediments to us achieving happiness at any one moment. The death of a loved one, the end of a relationship, the unexpected loss of a job - these are potentially devastating occurrences that can send any of us into tailspins of depression (and they happen all too frequently). 

But then there are the everyday trials and tribulations of life that so easily get us down, when, in reality, they’re basically meaningless. An annoying co-worker. Car problems. DVR malfunctioning. Yet in our culture of self-worship, too often we raise these problems to undeserving levels of angst.

So when something happens like these deadly tornados striking, and we see the images of devastation in Joplin, Missouri, not only does it remind us that our mundane problems are insignificant, but it also makes me wonder how the people affected pick up and go on with their lives. When members of your family and friends have been killed, when your neighborhood has been destroyed, when everything you owned is gone, how do you go on?


Tornado destruction in Joplin, Missouri. (Larry W. Smith/European Pressphoto Agency)

I know I’m going to lose a lot of people here, but that’s the central question in David Simon’s HBO series “Treme”: after Hurricane Katrina, how did people go on?

I don’t know anyone else who’s watching it, but I am. A lot of my friends who loved Simon’s “The Wire” gave it a chance in the show’s first season but gave up because it was too slow and didn’t have the same narrative punch as “The Wire.” But you know what? That the show doesn’t have a typical dramatic structure is to its credit, because the people trying to recover from the storm did so at different paces, in different places and in different ways - ways that don’t lend themselves to the kind of drama we ordinarily demand from our popular entertainment.

The series is more like a tapestry of stories. And I suspect that in Joplin, as the days turn to months and years, a similar tapestry will emerge - of loss, grief, devastation, and hopefully recovery, renewal and hope. There is no template for how to go on when you’ve lost everything, and I’m sure every single person touched by the tornado will deal with it differently.

All the rest of us can do is offer support to those in need in whatever ways we can and realize that our problems, whatever they may be, aren’t so bad.

Fame

We are a nation of celebrity-obsessed people. We keep People and TMZ and US Weekly and all the similar outfits in business because of our obsession. And I’m not here to judge whether we should or shouldn’t care about famous people.

But what I am here to discuss is why so many people want so badly to be famous. Yes, there can be money. And yes, there can be attention. But to what end? It seems like many people - especially young people - who achieve a high level of fame don’t know how to handle it, how to behave, or how to stay sane. (Reading this on Deadspin got me thinking about this tonight - and incidentally, I’m pretty sure I saw Jay Mariotti crossing Ocean Ave in Santa Monica one day last week.)

Yet now the race to be famous is hotter than ever, thanks to reality TV, youtube, and every other technological advance that has helped break down the monopoly that the entertainment industry had over stardom.

Would Justin Bieber have been a star 20 years ago, before youtube? I doubt it. Is he, on the whole, happy that he can’t appear in public without people mobbing him? I have no idea. My guess is that enjoys parts of his life but despises other parts. And I’m not sure what his alternative would have been had he not become a pop star, so he’s probably come out ahead.

(But let’s stop thinking about what the world would be like without Bieber. It’s too painful a hypothetical to even consider.)

I’m always curious about how celebrities handle fame when their children are young. I’ve spoken to some of my famous friends about this, specifically about the phenomenon of strangers coming up to them on the street to say hello while their kids are there with them.

I can’t imagine what that must be like, for a kid to say, “Daddy, who was that person?” And then to answer, “I don’t know them, but they know me.” How is a kid supposed to process that?

Good thing Justin Bieber doesn’t have any kids. That would probably just make my head explode.

Novak Djokovic

Well, I have to give Novak Djokovic credit. I’ve never been a huge fan of his, and I’ve only watched from afar as he’s amassed his winning streak this season. But today I was excited to watch him take on Andy Murray in the Rome semis - I wanted to see if Djokovic could get a win on clay against one of the tour’s best grinders and run his record to 36-0 this season.

Not only did Djokovic grind out the win - a three-set thriller that ended in a tiebreak - but he also did so in a way that surprised me. He did it with guts.

The third set turned into a back-and-forth affair with neither man either to hold serve particularly well. As the set wore on, the hallmarks of a Djokovic collapse seemed to be appearing - he started playing loose points, his body language sagged, his leg muscles started acting up, and he seemed on the verge of losing for the first time in 2011.

Murray served for the match at 5-4 and was two points from winning - but Djokovic fought back to win the game, remarkably keeping his cool and overcoming whatever physical difficulties he was enduring to advance to tomorrow’s final against Rafael Nadal.

Murray didn’t do himself any favors - he couldn’t get in a first serve to save his life in the match’s latter stages - but it was Djokovic who kept his nerve and made the shots.

I wasn’t necessarily a believer in Djokovic before this - I doubted his ability to close out tough matches. And after such a trying match, I wouldn’t be surprised if Nadal wipes him out tomorrow. But I won’t doubt his heart anymore after watching him play today.

The big question remains whether his body can hold up through an entire season - and future seasons. That’s the most underrated aspect of Federer’s amazing run of 23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinal appearances - that he not only won all those matches but also that he stayed healthy for a remarkable period of time.

Djokovic has proven that he has the game and the heart to be a great champion. But does he have the legs?

News Haikus

Tonight I decided to write haikus for a few of the stories covered on NBC Nightly News. I had never written haikus before. I might never do it again. But in the meantime, here they are:

Mighty Mississipp’
Rising, threatening, flooding
Lives underwater

Osama’s notebook
Filled with murderous intent
Were there any jokes?

Romney’s health care woes
For it before against it
Just give it up, man

Oil lords tell Senate
Don’t tax us for our success
More pain at the pump

Camera rolls on sky
Lightning crashes into plane
Electrifying

Woody’s Back?

Woody Allen’s films have been important to me for as long as I can remember. Well, that’s not exactly true. My parents went to see Hannah and Her Sisters and took me along when I was six years old - and I hated it (which probably isn’t all that surprising). It wasn’t until I saw the film again as a young adult that it became one of my favorites of all time.

But for the sake of argument, let’s just say that for much of my life, Woody’s films have meant a lot to me. They have affected my sense of humor and writing style, they’ve certainly given me a lot of laughs, and they’ve made me think a lot about human relationships. Annie Hall, Love and Death, Deconstructing Harry, Take the Money and Run, Manhattan…I could go on and on.

Even in recent years, through a decade’s worth of critical mostly-misses, I’ve bought my annual ticket as if my life depended on it. And I’ve even managed to enjoy myself, telling others, “If you really love Woody’s movies you’ll get some enjoyment out of it - otherwise, skip it.” (Though I must admit, even I walked out of Cassandra’s Dream.)

This past year, however, I finally missed a Woody Allen picture: You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger. Why did I miss it? I’m not exactly sure. I remember it being out and having some interest in going to see it, but I never made it. Perhaps it was because I was tired of seeing mediocre films, perhaps I was feeling guilty for having left Woody’s beloved New York to live in his much-despised Los Angeles or perhaps I was just too busy when it was out. I don’t know. (But I guess my life didn’t depend on seeing it - I’m still alive, as far as I can tell.)

I say all of this to get to the point: I’m excited for Midnight in Paris, Woody’s new film, which opened the Cannes Film Festival today. The early reviews trickling in have been positive, and although the trailer (which you can watch, along with clips of some Woody classics, HERE) raises more questions than it answers, I’m not going to miss this one.

I’ve long since stopped hoping that each new release match the “early, funny ones,” to steal a phrase from Stardust Memories, or the mid-career classics - but here’s hoping the early indications are correct: that Woody has given us another film to treasure.

College Sticker Shock

There’s a headline on the cover of this week’s issue of New York that asks, “Is College a Scam?” As it turns out, that’s not exactly what the article by Daniel B. Smith addresses. The more accurate (though less sexy) question is, “Is College Worth the Price?”

The two protagonists in the story are James Altucher and Peter Thiel, two venture capitalists (and graduates of elite universities) who have railed against college as being a waste of time and money. In the story, Altucher asks, “When [my daughters are] 18 years old, just hand them $200,000 to go off and have a fun time for four years? Why would I want to do that?”

It’s a fair question to ask, especially since the cost of college keeps skyrocketing - and that’s really the point of this story. Like the dot com and housing bubbles, some experts believe that the college tuition bubble will soon burst as well. With student loan debt approaching $1 trillion, at some point, the experts argue, the system will become unsustainable.

The “scam” part of this is that to succeed in today’s world, it’s presumed that one must have a college degree - and the colleges know that, so they charge basically whatever they want. Parents are willing to financially cripple themselves - or have their children take out student loans - to send their kids to the best colleges so they can to keep up in this system.

But to me, this isn’t exactly a scam - there is, without question, value in a college education. Whether that value equals the tuition cost is up to the school and, to some degree, the student’s desire to make use of the school’s resources (assuming the school’s resources are in line with the tuition cost).

The tuition bubble, in my opinion, will only burst when parents in mass numbers stop paying the exorbitant fees that colleges demand. And one aspect of parents’ desire to keep paying - or having their kids take out student loans - is not addressed in the article: status.

Parents don’t just want their kids to go to college, they want their kids to go to the best college humanly possible. Parents compete with other parents over where their kids will go to college. And kids therefore compete with each other over where they will go to college.

This cult of college has brought us such hallmarks of suburban culture as the oversized backpack for overstressed, over-scheduled elementary school students; college consultants who charge large fees to polish a kid’s candidacy for top schools; and a hyper-competitive scholastic environment that often does more damage than good.

High schools are complicit, because they enjoy the status that comes from sending as many kids to college (especially top-tier colleges), but for the most part, this is largely due to parents’ behavior.

It comes from a good place, of course - parents just want their kids to have the best chance at success in life, and the cult of college tells us that, on average, the better the university one attends, the more successful one will be. This can be a dubious claim. (Happiness is another question altogether, though it’s assumed that success equals happiness - which, of course, is not always a correct assumption either.)

And certainly a lot has been written about the psychological trauma this hyper-competitive scholastic environment has on kids, but that’s not the point of this discussion.

The point is this: at what point will the cost of a college education dwarf its value, and at what point will parents decide that college is no longer worth the sticker price? Despite the national student-loan debt ominously nearing the $1 trillion mark, that day doesn’t seem to be coming anytime soon.

Claude Stanley Choules, Dead at 110

We all have varying levels of ambition and desire for achievement. But I think most of us have the sense that something might happen today or tomorrow that will change the course of our lives or be a defining experience.

But what if that defining experience, in fact, happened when we were 14? That was the case for Claude Stanley Choules, who passed away last week at age 110. That’s right, age 110. His accomplishment: he was the last known combat veteran of World War I.

We usually think of athletes’ public lives peaking early, but this guy joined the British Royal Navy when he was 14 years old. And because he outlived every other combat veteran, the headline of his obituary was about something he did 96 years ago - and not dying for almost a century.

Can you imagine? Ninety-six years ago? And his bookended accomplishments were joining the navy as a teenager and then not dying for 96 years?

Of course, that’s not to say that he didn’t live an interesting or noble life during those years. Among the noteworthy things he did between 1915 and 2011:

* Moved to Australia
* Became a pacifist and refused to march in veterans’ parades
* Was married to the same woman for 76 years (the former Ethel Wildgoose - love that name - who died at 98)
* Started every day by eating a bowl of porridge
* Took a creative writing class in his 80s
* Published his autobiography at age 109 
* Celebrated his 110th birthday
* Killed Osama bin Laden

(Okay, I made up that last one. If he had done that, such an accomplishment probably would have made the obituary headline.)

Woody Allen is known to have said, “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” Claude Stanley Choules showed up for World War I and then kept showing up for life for 96 more years, each day a new opportunity to add to his legacy - and that got him an obituary in newspapers around the world.

And there’s a lesson here for all of us: if you want to live for a really long time, eat porridge for breakfast.