Not Such a Dry Dock

Without exception, I have enjoyed all of the Drydock combinations I've been able to hear -- Jake and Sean, Danny and Davey, the Siroisie wherever they would pop up.  Probably forgetting some, and I didn't hear all of the Drydock shows.  (See repeated comment below for an uncomplimentary review of one particular combo.) 

There is a temptation to think -- whatever will we do when (pick one or more)

     --  One or more Musers retires from the show?

     --  Norm retires (OK, not so many thinking what they will do if)?

     --  Bob goes off to hockey/full-time Troy servicing/TV/another station?

     --  Dan does something?

     --  Mike retires?

     --  Corby does something?

     --  Danny disappears into the world of local music promotion, hospitality industry, better-paying broadcast job elsewhere?

But based on what I heard over the past week or so, I think there will be plenty of talent, plenty of laughs, plenty of bits, plenty of scheduled segments, to keep The Ticket on top in any of these events.

I've had occasion to listen to sports radio in a couple of different cities over the past couple of months.  Is it bad?  Maybe not, if it's the only thing you're used to, and the local guys
are engaging enough that you develop a kind of radio romance over time.  But if you're a casual tune-in for a few days -- yeah, it's bad.

But The Ticket -- it's a different bird.  It's a different sound entirely, warm and intimate, informal and fun.  It's a hackneyed sentiment at this point, but it bears repeating -- there's nothing like it.  Three Marconis should be evidence enough.

Let's enjoy it while we can.  Then we can enjoy it some more.

A very, very safe and happy New Year to all Confessors.

And a special New Year's holler to mo money, mo problems:

A Merry Non-Denominational Context-Dependent Christmas to All Confessors

My Ticket monitoring has returned to near-normal after a couple of months of difficulty in finding the time to get my ears listening.   Hope to have something fun to chew on soon.

In the meantime, have a safe and happy Christmas, all Confessors around the world.

I Heard It on the Handoff

Danny Balis:  "We're [the Orphanage, with Dave Lane] going to do something today that the Hardline hasn't done in probably fifteen years."

Mike Sirois:  "Prepare?"

Loved it.

So we're not the only ones.

(Oh, yeah, the actual answer was:  Take calls.)

On the Run with Dan and Mike

I caught a fair bit of the Dan McDowell-Mike Sirois midday presentation today in the car and thought it was pretty good.

I was going to write a compare-and-contrast thing about Dan and Bob, on the one hand, and Dan and Other People, on the other, but I'm in between commitments here and expected elsewhere soon.

Also, I'm uncertain what I think about that topic.

Maybe I'll come back to this later and jot down a few thoughts on the enigmatic chemical ingredient that is Dan McDowell.

Or maybe you guys can write it for me.

Dan and Mike, it's not important that you have hair; it's only important that I have hair.

Your Destination for White Elephant Commentary

Please check in.  Shaping up to be an entertaining day.  The prewritten gags are always jewels.

I find it of interest that the two most senior hosts -- Norm and Mike -- got to keep their regular slots.

Fix:  in.

There Is Nothing Like the Ticket

Or maybe there's nobody like Gordon Keith.

Or maybe there's nobody like Jason "Killer" Kellison.

But as I was marveling this morning at yet another one of Killer's Gordon-penned oral essays, this one on Christmas, the thought that came to me was that as brilliant as Gordon can be -- is -- and as perfect a foil as Killer has sacrificed his dignity and self-esteem to become, what's unreproduceable these bits is the combination of the two of them, and Junior's appreciative laughing-but-not-overlaughing, and Jeff Catlin keeping his hand lightly enough on the tiller to allow this kind of satire on some things that some listeners unquestionably believe are beyond kidding.

Gordon couldn't perform that essay himself.  It would never work.  The words wouldn't be funny coming out of his smart mouth.  Jer -- no.  Craig, George -- no.  Fernando -- certainly not.  Killer -- he ain't dumb, but his history of eager but not-entirely-smooth forays onto the air makes him the perfect interpreter of these bits, which I almost always find hilarious.  Of course, nobody thinks Killer is dumb.  I sure don't; Ticket management certainly doesn't.  But in Killer, Gordon has found the perfect actor, and it's impossible to imagine any other program on The Ticket or the Fan or ESPN where that bit could even have been offered. 

Which is why, among many other reasons, The Ticket is essential.  It is the only home for certain kinds of programming, the for the peculiar genius that bubbles up out of the chemistry between this once-in-a-lifetime -- or maybe once-in-a-generation -- set of humans.

Ken Berry, RIP.

I've Been Away

and not able to listen to The Ticket (even streaming) or post.  Thanks for your patience. 

Anyone got the WED lineup?

Hope to have some news up shortly.

Not Breaking, and Not All That Newsy

A Ticketish source who has been reliable in the past reports that all hosts are under contract through at least the end of 2019.   I don't think that's necessarily a new thing -- no recent re-ups, to my knowledge. 

Just saying that, barring some personal misfortune, no lineup changes for the next year.

And now, for the hottest rumors on dramatic lineup changes for the Texas Legends  .  .  .  .

In expiation for this being a crappy post, extra reds today.

MTC REPORTS -- Or, Thank You, Jason "Killer" Kellison

Awhile back Bob Sturm was flogging George DiGianni's 21 Day Makeover and Full Body Cleanse, which he said he would return to when he was feeling a little "doughy."  "Doughy" and "cleanse" are not two words I care to associate with the Admirable Bob, but I must say that I had gotten to feeling a little doughy myself.  I'm not a young chap any longer and it began to dawn on me that I couldn't continue to eat fast food and snacks and watch it burn off the next day.  I'm tallish and carry weight pretty well, but when the scale got up to 223  .  .  .  . 

I didn't need to lose a ton -- 30, 35 pounds or so would be about right.  I hadn't tried any commercial remedies except fen-phen, a way long time ago, before they took it off the market (worked great, coupla pills, the weight would come off mostly in the form of sweat and stress and a loss of appetite).  Wait, I also tried Fit Foods, which gets people to lose weight by selling them food they really don't want to eat.  Too much kale and quinoa.  Sorry.

But I must say that Jason "Killer" Kellison's ads for SOTA Weight Loss sounded pretty interesting.  I would think it would be tough to lose weight working in a show-bizzy atmosphere what with sponsor catering and grabbing food at odd hours and the like.  And that result from a guy who apparently needed to lose a lot more than I did  .  .  .  .

So I gave it a try and I'm here to give you a report.

Here's how it works:

You go in and get weighed up.  You talk to a counselor about how much weight you would ideally like to lose.  More about the counselors below.

They estimate about how long it will take you to lose the weight on the program.

They give you all the food you will need on a week-to-week basis, with two exceptions to be noted.  You get to pick the food from their "pantry":  7 "snacky" items, 21 "mealish" items, 28 total items for four eating events per day, up until evening dinner, for a week.  You'll see this illustrated below. More about dinner in a moment.

They tell you what you may eat in substitution, and how often and in what amounts, if you must stray from the strict program.  Eggs are usually a safe substitute, but there are others.  Some you may substitute infrequently or in limited amounts.

They tell you when and how often to eat it.  You are to eat a breakfast, a snack, lunch, an afternoon snack -- those are the four SOTA eating events -- and for dinner, a small serving, fist-sized, 6 ounces, of any meat of your choice -- they're not too specific on how it may be prepared, so I sneak in a couple of KFC thighs now and then -- and a couple of cups of vegetables, but not just any vegetables -- only the ones without sugar, like asparagus, broccoli, and cauliflower.   (No peas, carrots, corn, the good stuff.)  Those are the two exceptions, the evening meat (sometimes I have it for lunch instead) and some vegetables. They would also like you to have a couple of cups of vegetables for lunch, which I usually skip because it's a pain to prepare that stuff in an office.

They tell you what you may not eat -- fruits, lay off the wine and beer (modest spirits allowed, I'm a gin man myself), many other sweetie and salty carby things. Breads, potatoes, starchy things. 

And a half-hour daily of light exercise -- nothing too strenuous, nothing to trigger too much hunger but enough to get your heart rate up once a day.  A brisk walk will do, although I find that more exercise does not increase my hunger.

And then you go eat that and come back next week and weigh in and get coached up and fill your order for the next week's food.  In the meantime, you must keep a diary of everything you eat and when and your exercise and water consumption for them to review when you come in for your up-coaching.  They give you a form to use but I created my own Excel spreadsheet.  Cheating should be recorded.

Now take a look at this:  With the exception of the vegetables and meat that you supply THIS IS EVERYTHING YOU EAT FOR A WEEK up through the afternoon snack.  I've laid out a typical seven-day regimen, the four SOTA "meals" you eat up until the evening meal.

With the exception of the bars and the chips -- note you may only eat one of one of those each day -- but including the stuff in the bottles, and I guess that cereal, ALL OF THAT IS POWDER.  (Eat the cereal with half-and-half.  Surprised?  No carbs in half-and-half.)  Low carbohydrate, high-protein, powder, to be mixed with water for your meal.  You can eat any of them at any time -- that is, you don't have to have cereal for breakfast, and you don't have to have soup for lunch.  You could reverse them if you want, or have a shake for breakfast or lunch or a snack.  But not more than one chip or bar a day.

MEN AND WOMEN, IF THAT'S ALL YOU EAT UP TO YOUR EVENING MEAL, AND YOU DON'T CHEAT, YOUR BODY WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SHED FAT, AND A LOT OF IT, AND FAST.

And I did.  I lost that 30 pounds.  And I cheated a bit.  I've done two stints.  The first time I lost about 25-30, kept it off for a long time, but had a stretch of travel and vacations and other celebrations that put 5-7 back on, so I went back for a tuneup and took off another 10-15 or so.  Just finishing it up, and I am back to how much I weighed about 20 years ago and still losing.  Feel good, much more energy, and look a lot better.  Man, I feel better just walking down the hall -- I can tell I'm not hauling nearly as much suet.  I can tie my shoes without gasping for breath. I just went for a five-mile jog without working too hard when formerly I'd be stopping to catch my breath after a half-block.

Doesn't look like much food, does it?  Will you get hungry?  Possibly, but I didn't, really.  The first couple of days may see you have a pang or two, but they will pass.

The ads are accurate.  You will almost certainly lose more than 5 pounds the first week.  The rate of loss is likely to slow after that, although if you're really religious and don't cheat, you should keep losing at a good clip.  But if you lose two pounds a week, that's still double the rate you'll lose on most other programs.

The food, although not substantial, is generally palatable.  The chips and bars are good.  The chicken and beef bullion ditto.  I did not care for the chili or some of the other soups.  The pancake -- no, a terrible mess in the pan.  It refused to cook; tried it a few times.  The shakes (the bottles) are very good.  Some of the mixtures are difficult to dissolve (the cream of chicken, which, when dissolved, is perfectly good, but watch for the bergs of undissolved powder).  And at night, you can have your fish or chicken breast or meat patty or filet mignon or whatever youw ant and some vegetables (they encourage the use of butter on the vegs).  For meat, I sometimes even use zero-carb weenies (Nathan's my favorite, zero carbohydrates) or sardines/smoked oysters (ditto).  Eggs for dinner also a frequent choice.

How much does it cost?  A lot.  The more you want to lose, the longer you need to be on the program, and you have to pay it all up front -- an incentive to stay the course.  It clocks in at about $225 a week, $30-$35 bucks a day.  But remember -- they're giving you your food for most of your day.  You really do spend less on groceries (no snacks, beer, other forbidden fruits.)  They're coaching you up once a week.  And after that's over, there's free counseling thereafter.  And really -- how much do you want to lose weight, safely, without surgery?  Being fat is really, really awful and it is hard to cure.  Fat shaming is out, but hell, you know what people think about you if you're grossly unsightly fat?  And you know what you think of yourself, and of other fatsos.  And, hormonal problems aside, you're both right.  You're just fat.  SOTA gets it off quickly and safely, if not thrillingly.  Its quick results at the outset have got to be one reason people are flocking to it -- there's little waiting to see the pounds start to come off.

(There's also a machine they want you to stand on that shakes up the system a bit, but if you think it looks silly they'll confide in you that it's mostly for older adults whose joints need a little persuading.)

Ah, the counseling.  SOTA's secret weapon -- the Cute Chick Counselors.  At my location, all of the counselors are young women, or very fit and attractive women of a certain age.  You will probably see a different one each week.  And when your day to weigh in rolls around, you become very aware of NOT WANTING TO DISAPPOINT THE CUTE CHICK COUNSELORS.  Oh, no, you do not want them to see that you've cheated, because if you come in and you haven't lost anything and no cheating shows up on your food diary, they will know you are the worst kind of black liar and the Cute Chick Counselor will be oh, so disappointed.  In general, they are as Killer and Ty and others have said -- very supportive, very encouraging, nice, full of tips and tricks and recipes you will ignore because you're a guy and you're not going to do recipes or use those awful, awful no-cal salad dressings they urge you to try to add flavor.  Walden Farms, yeah, them's the ones.  And the Stevia sugar substitute for your coffee -- both lethal.  But you listen and nod your head because they're Cute Chick Counselors and you want them to approve of you.

The one problem I had with the program -- it's boring after a few weeks.  After you've lost some weight, the temptation to cheat grows.  Resist it if you can, but if you must, make it just a little.  Next day you step on the scale, you've put on a pound.  You're remorseful.  You think about the Cute Chick Counselors.  You resolve not to cheat.  You fail, a little. But not enough, and the weight will start to come off again.

One thing I wonder about the man/woman on the street is:  How does this work if you have a family eating regular meals?  How does it work if you don't have a gig that allows you to visit SOTA during their (only) daytime hours?  The weekly check-in is mandatory -- if you don't go, you don't get the next week's chow, and the weigh-in is essential to determine effectiveness.

Will it change the way you eat and live, like Killer says?  If you go to the continued free coaching, like he says he does, and I think Ty has also taken advantage of, then probably.  Me?  I have not taken advantage of the free post-program counseling, but the SOTA program has been invaluable in reminding me that the Atkins Diet had it right all those years ago -- carbohydrates make you fat.  Calories less important.  Snacks and certain foods have lots of carbohyrdates.  Find things to eat that don't have high carbs.   Eat them, not the carb things.  Eat less of them.  You'll lose weight and keep it off.  Exercise -- good for lots of things, but won't help you much with weight loss.

Being off SOTA has not stopped my craving for Chili-Cheese Fritos and the Taco Bell Combo #3 and Peanut M&Ms, but I'll tell you this -- when I was off the program, I stopped stuffing myself at every meal (felt lousy when I did), made SOTA-friendly choices at most turns, and stopped observing one of my rules, which was "When Food Is Free, You Must Eat as Much of It as Possible."  The weight stayed off for a long time, until the aforementioned serial vacations to Hawaii, Chicago, and a Wyoming dude ranch, all within about six weeks, when I departed the wagon too many times.

Nope, best to just stick with the program, eat what they give you, keep cheating really low, pay attention to the permissible substitutes, don't go crazy with the evening meal, and dream about those Cute Chick Counselors.

So I have to thank Killer for his enthusiastic and persuasive endorsement.  With a sidelong thanks to Ty and all those P1 telephone endorsers.

Speaking of Killer  .  .  .

He's been doing those ads for a long time.  They work.  They work on SOTA's target demo -- overweight men approaching middle age who watch more sports than they play.

SOTA has obviously re-upped him as time has gone by.

I think our Killer must be doing pretty well.   Thanks, man. 

Sorry, Jinj, apples are not on the list.

Confessor James Muses on the Influence of Sports-Talk Radio on Strategery

 

I am always pleased to get submissions from Confessors suitable for running as a post.  Frequent commenter James sent me this a couple of weeks ago.  I regret I didn't get it up before now, because he obviously wrote it after a Cowboys loss, while we're all basking in the evanescent glow of a Cowboys win.  Apologies, James

He makes a point you hear from time to time on The Ticket, so I thought it would be appropriate to run here.

Thank you, James.  And enjoy the G-rated red you requested to accompany.

                                                                -- Plainsman

 

 

A few years ago, I heard the manager of a baseball team explain why he didn't bring his closer in with a 4-run lead: because it wasn't a save situation. In other words, he was letting a stat, not what's best for his team, influence a coaching decision. 

 

If I'm allowed to switch sports, I'd like to share my theory that football coaches often have a tendency to let their coaching decisions be influenced, not by what's best for the team, but by fear of public opinion. Specifically, if a coach decides to punt on 4th-and-short, rather than basing that decision on any statistical probability of success, he's basing it on a fear of criticism. His thinking goes like this: if he goes for it on 4th and fails to get the 1st down, he'll get raked over the coals in the court of public opinion and on stations like The Ticket. But if he punts, and his team loses, then he isn't as likely to get criticism, because he did the conventional thing. 

Obviously, this theory looks way off in light of the aftermath of the Cowboys' overtime loss the other night. Everyone's 2nd-guessing Garrett now. But historically, the fans, pundits and show hosts have acted differently than they did this week. In fact, I can remember a time or two when Wade Phillips took a lot of heat for going for it on 4th down. 

Please note that this post is not intended to spark a lot of Garrett-bashing. That's low-hanging fruit. Nor is it an attempt to incite comments about last Sunday night's game.  My theory is bigger than one game, or even one team. The question is simply this: do you agree that coaches who "play it safe" on 4th down are letting fear enter their thought process? Specifically, fear of being bashed by BAD Radio, the Musers, or local columnists? Follow-up question: Is there no longer a consensus about punting being the safe thing to do? Are we seeing a change?

 

 

Endorsement and Encore

This is unlikely to be a controversial opinon.

I really like "Work in Progress" (although don't care for that name).  I was out on a jog this morning  listening to Justin Montemayor and David Mino and I chuckled out loud on more than one occasion, and was pretty attentive all the rest of the time.

Justin proved to be a natural broadcaster from his very earliest stints as a fill-in host and other on-air exposure.  It has taken David a little longer to be comfortable, but he's improved immensely over the past several months. 

There's also the matter of chemistry.  I didn't feel it with Justin and Machine, but he and David work together pretty seamlessly and -- something even harder to achieve -- evenly.  I thought of it as "Justin's show" for a long time, but now the balance is good and the back-and-forth pretty seamless.

Justin has always been funny, very much in the dry, witty mold of Craig "Junior" Miller.  David doesn't have Justin's facility with the language, but he's got a native sense of what's going to play with the Sunday morning crowd.

And here's something else -- it's probably been in there somewhere and I just don't remember, but these guys steer blessedly clear of  "current events."  They'll do the weird news stories for laughs, but we don't get too many snide remarks about politicians of the left or right.

Thanks, gents.

I'd like to hear "Work in Progress" more often.

*     *     *

And now, to please a couple of Confessors who Cared Enough to Write -- the same red as last post:

Just an Excuse for New Thread and New Redhead

If the apparent continuing decline of Dak Prescott is a material factor in the Cowboys' suckage, can we look back on the promotion of Kellen Moore to quarterbacks coach as the preposterous move it seemed at the time?

Ah, one might say, that's how Jason Garrett began his own dizzying ascent in the coaching ranks after his own undistinguished career as a Slinger of the Big Pigskin.

Yessss  .  .  .  . one might say that.  And what might one's point be?

On the Road Again

Confessors, I know I've been absent a bit, and that is going to continue.  I'm about to hit the road again tomorrow, so to get a fresh thread started I'll throw out two half-assed sportsy opinions, which faithful readers will know are never likely to become fully-assed.

(1)   Jason Garrett's job will be saved through at least the 2019 season by Guillain–Barré syndrome.

(2)   We're burying the lede here on Dez Bryant's failure to find a job to his liking.  Pundit after host after sportswriter has said "There are teams out there that Dez Bryant could help.  Wonder what's going on?"

And while most of them do acknowledge that he's a difficult handle, this aspect of his problem has been downplayed.

Men and women:  He was a real problem.  

We saw it on "Hard Knocks," where he seemed to not be with the program, a headache in team meetings.  

And what about those sideline rants?  It has been pointed out that audio proves that he was being rah-rah, being supportive, not being a bad guy.  

Well lemme axes you a question, as Craig "Junior" Miller would say.  Make it two questions:

(i)  If you were a seasoned pro like many of the Cowboys were in Dez's heyday, would you like a manchild screaming at you like a high school sophomore to get up, get up, get up, come on, we can do it, etc. etc.?

(ii)  And would you like it coming from the guy who sneers at game prep, never ever learned to run a crisp route, didn't even seem to learn plays for the longest time, increasingly dropped balls, whined about not getting enough balls thrown his way, and generally didn't seem to care all that much about winning until the Cowboys were losing on game day?

Nope, I don't think Dez Bryant was a good teammate at all, and I don't believe any Cowboy who says he was.  

And I think the league knows it and can't get very excited about giving much money to a guy who demonstrated during his entire career that he didn't get it -- receiving records notwithstanding.  When the headache overbalances the gift as the years go by, it's hard to find buyers for a hot potato.

Half-baked or half-assed.

I Concede Defeat [REDHEAD NSFW]

Not that I was ever going to win this battle.

Long-time Confessors are aware that I don't like Fight Night.  You can search for past articles where I go into detail, but to summarize:

       (1)  There's enough violence in the world between strangers without The Ticket promoting it.

       (2)  Although it hasn't happened to date, some terrible things can happen when amateurs start hitting each other -- rather, start getting hit.  Sometimes hard.  A death or very serious injury in the ring, while unlikely, is by no means impossible.  A tragedy for the victim, and a tragedy for The Ticket.

        And by the way -- Laurence Cole is not universally admired as a referee, as proud as The Ticket seems to be of having secured his services.  Laurence Cole is an Idiot; The Laurence Cole Awards

       (3)  It's not a great broadcast.  Multiple voices talking at once, each of them hollering "OHHhhhh" when someone gets hit.  Blow-by-blow guy providing inexpert narration (Norm's the best).   Pathetic post-fight interviews (Jake's oration following his definitive reduction of Mike from Palookaville a notable exception).

So my objections are part weenielike, and part aesthetic.

The only good thing about it is getting to hear the magnificent Rich Phillips announcing.

But it's here to stay, at least until my Cassandra-like warnings come true.

I do tune in some years, kind of like not turning away from a train wreck.  But might be tuning into the Cowboys game.

Redhead potentially NSFW, so you'll have to scroll down  .  .  .

I Like It When Julie Dobbs Says the Score Is "Nine to Zero" or "Six to Zero"

As I heard her do with some recent Ranger scores.

It's not what I'd call a profound topic, but wanted to get something new up to see if we couldn't get some innarestin new thread started.

Not Julie:

Check Me on This

It has become a commonplace among Confessors -- and, from time to time Your Plainsman -- that Mike checks out more than he should.  There have been periods of time when The Hardline seems to have become The Corby Show, Featuring Danny.

Now mind you -- I am not a major Corby basher, and some time ago I likened Danny to bacon -- everything is better with a side of Danny.  As far as Corby is concerned:  Yeah, he's not as prepared as he should be, and he's Superlative Corby, and maybe he isn't hip to absolutely all of the facts a host might be expected to have when holding forth on one topic or another, he's a bit of a celebrity-sniffer, and he has a kickass life, but I must say that the man amuses me.  I'm OK with most of that -- I'd like to have a kickass life myself and sniff a celebrity now and then.  (Lately, the Siroisie are pretty much it for me.  They smelled great!)  I find myself laughing out loud at some of his remarks, which I don't do that often during my solitary listening to The Ticket, amusing as it often is.  I know this departs from the views of some Confessors, but there you go.

But lately, it seems to me that Mike is in one of his Engaged Mike Eras.  They emerge from time to time, and their duration cannot be predicted.  Seems to me that I'm hearing More Mike than I have for awhile now.  That's a good thing, makes for a better showgram stem to stern.  He's a legend for a reason, and that reason, I think, is that he is simply an engaging adult presence. a guy whose voice one likes to hear on the radio.  Not even a past-middle-age-trending-towards-older-guy adult presence, but more of a get-off-my-lawn guy who doesn't take that pose all that seriously, and who is seriously fond of his co-host and producer.  I like that attitude.

In the words of a keen formerly-inside observer of All Things Tickety:  Am I wrong, guys?

This probably invites the usual Corby-bashing, and that's OK, but let's keep it civil.  Keep the focus on The Founder, if you can.

I'd pay eight dollar d-dollar dar in 1950 dollars for the chance  to have a drink with The Old Grey One.

  

I May Regret This

Readers will recall that the last post invited a Sirois to get in touch with me if he had an interest in viewing, or basking in the presence of, a choice fossilized megalodon tooth that I happen to own.

It's the real thing, not a replica.  Original organic material has been replaced by phosphate-rich minerals, giving it a mostly black color.  It was found by a diver who looks for these things off the coast of South Carolina, where much of the world's supply of meg teeth are found.

Other than teeth, no other remains of megs are known.  Some coprolites.  A few spinal bones, not many.  Their size and habits have been largely deduced from their teeth.

Teeth are not that rare, but undamaged large ones are uncommon and prized.

A Sirois, one Mike, contacted me.

He invited me to attend the showing of "The Meg" at the Studio Movie Grill on Royal.  Although I think it is possible he was more interested in the megalodon tooth than in me personally.  He even said he'd pop for a ticket.

I hereby accept.

The show is at 7.  Mike said he'd be at the theater at 6.

I plan to be there sometime between 6-6:30.

To my knowledge there are no bits planned around the tooth.  I think he just wants to be in the presence of what remains of a megalodon before viewing "The Meg."  But I'll go with what he has in mind, if  anything.

But the thing is -- if you would like to meet Your Plainsman after these nine anonymous years, I would very much like to meet you.  No tricks, no paper bag over my head. 

I have appointments that day, and will probably be in a lightweight suit and tie, something like that.   Since that will make me identifiable, I'll probably go with that.  I have a 4:30 engagement but I can duck out of that to get to the SMG.  Please come on up and say hello, chat a bit.  If Mike isn't playing with the tooth, I'll have it in hand, so there's another way you can recognize me.

See you there?

CONFIDENTIAL TO ONE OR ANOTHER SIROIS: Have I Got a Guest for You

I don't know if Mike or Cash ever have a cup of coffee at MTC, but if they do:

Mike/Cash:

I couldn't help noticing that lately you have been talking a lot about the movie "The Meg."

It will feature a gigantic extinct shark known scientifically as Carcharodon megalodon.

I believe you intend to feature more megalodon talk on future Sirois-based programming.

I have a special guest to suggest that I am able to procure for you.

An actual megalodon.

Now, of course, there are no live megalodons left, suspension of disbelief in connection with "The Meg" notwithstanding.

In fact, there is not much of any megalodon left, alive or dead.  As a shark, it was a cartilaginous fish (i.e., no actual bones), and cartilage is only rarely preserved in the fossil record.  We have a very, very few fossils of some spinal bones, some coprolites (fossilized feces) .  .  . 

.  .  .  and teeth.

Most of the known megalodon teeth come from underwater sediments off the coast of the Carolinas.  They are not particularly rare, but large, well-preserved teeth are somewhat unusual and costly.

Cue Vivaldi.

I have one.

This isn't a replica.  It's the real thing, albeit fossilized, much of the original material replaced by phosphates, which give the tooth its black color.  It's about six inches long and the serrations are intact.  The root is well-preserved and the bourlette (the chevron-shaped structure between the root and the tooth) clearly defined.   It was found by a diver who spends his days looking for these teeth off the coast of South Carolina.

It won't be much of an interview.  In fact, it would do very little to enhance a radio presentation.

But it is pretty much the closest thing you can possibly get to having an actual megalodon in the studio with you.

Contact me at theplainsman1310@gmail.com or advise in the comments below.  I will arrange for its secure delivery to you.  I believe I can promise exclusivity for this appearance.

Hey, Confessors -- if you own a megalodon tooth, send me a snap and I'll post it here.

Brain-Freeze Quick Hits

     (1)    Is that song that's going on in the background of some recent promos -- kind an industrial drone with an ascending three-note figure, repeated without change, with a distant, distorted voice saying "sports" -- an actual song?  Or just a promo bed someone put together?  It's hypnotic.

     (2)    My brain also made tiny by this utterance on the latest Meador commercial issued by Charlie Gray:  "We're continuing our 50-year tradition of offering the lowest prices in our history."

     Which I guess would mean continuously declining prices for 50 years.

     (3)    Gordon doing a hit-and-run reference to Duke Ellington this morning when imitating a Frenchman who has been sent out to grade the various Tour de France -- grades -- by category, who returns and reports that they are "beyond category," one of Ellington's favorite phrases.  (Says it several times.)

     (4)    Gordon/George bickering reaching punch-out proportions.   Bog; negative humor value; converts attractive persons into unattractive persons.

     (5)   Big Black Cowboys Computer -- fun bit, some yucks, but reduce airtime by about 47%.

ThePlainsman1310@gmail.com

@Plainsman1310

My World Has Been Shattered -- The End of MTC?

Craig Miller -- the one they call "Junior," sometimes "the Joonz" -- committed an error this morning.

I stared at the radio, my piehole agape.

I'm not sure I can go on.

One's existence has so few certainties in this uncertain world.  I thought Craig's freedom from error was among them.

In this, I was apparently also in error.

He corrected the error, more or less, in the next segment.  But his correction indicated that he did not understand his error.

He was reprising the flat-earth guy from the day before.  He reported that the flat-earth guy had said that the moon always shows the same side to the earth.

Craig -- excuse me, I have to go get a glass of water -- scoffed.  He said that of course we see the moon rotate and show all of its surface area to the earth.  It's why we can't always see the man in the moon, he said.

I'm thinking -- his phone must be melting.

And indeed, in the next segment, he issued a correction, but he didn't understand it.  He had been advised in the interim that the moon in fact, always does show its same side to the earth owing to a tidal phenomenon (it's called "tidal locking").  (In fact, there's a slight rotational wobble ("libration") that lets us see a little more than half of the moon's surface from the earth because its orbit is not perfectly circular.)   What froze his mind was this:  The moon's rotational period around its axis (spinning) is equal to its period of revolution around the earth (orbiting).   So what? he seemed to be saying; he still did not understand why we did not see the moon rotate so as to see all its surface.

It's because we view the rotation and the revolution at the same time from our vantage point here on terra firma.   Instead, let's expand our frame of reference -- out to the sun, for example.  (Yes, I know you can't stand on the sun.  The old joke:  "I want to be the first man on the sun."  "It's too hot."  "I'll go at night.")  Imagine you're on the sun looking back at the earth and the moon.  Now remove the earth from the picture to eliminate the distraction.  What do you see?  You see the moon rotating on its axis every 27 days and showing you all of its faces -- and it will always be full because the sun is what makes the moon shine.

Which leads us to the question of why Junior thinks that you can't always see the man in the moon.  It's not because he isn't there, having rotated out of sight -- it's because the moon's rotation with respect to the sun just described causes its phases from our vantage point on earth, so some of that always-facing-the-earth-surface disappears and reappears every month.   Or else it gets eaten and then spit back up by a space monster, I'm not sure.

I'll leave you with a fun moon fact.  The moon is the largest planetary satellite in the solar system as a percentage of the size of its planet.  It is the only natural planetary satellite in the solar system whose orbit always curves towards the sun.   That is, if you were to go way, way north of the sun's north pole and look down on the solar system, and then took the earth away and looked at the path of the moon's orbit over the course of the year, you would see that the moon's orbit would look like a twelve-sided thing where the sides curved gently toward the sun, and the corners curve more sharply toward the sun.  But none of that path would ever curve away from the sun. The earth and moon are, in effect, something of a double planet.

I'm going to go lie down.  Feeling unwell.  May be last article.