Will Hines Dot Net

That’s all.

Okay, people, let’s figure this out: how good ARE Liz Phair albums?

The central problem in figuring this out is that it’s very hard to separate the appeal of Liz Phair Albums from the appeal of The Idea Of Liz Phair. And that’s even more complicated since it’s very difficult to nail down what exactly The Idea Of Liz Phair is.

For myself, the Idea of Liz Phair is that she is the Coolest Woman Alive. She isn’t, of course, but for those of use who were in our early 20s in 1993, when Liz Phair’s first album Exile In Guyville came out — that’s what she is. This unknown, deadpan, sarcastic, sexually aggressive girl singer arose from the wake of super-macho Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden’s world to charm all of us nervous bookish types right out of our Pixies pajamas. I remember sitting in my house, deep in the woods of Danbury, Ct, listening to the soothing hum of “Divorce Song,” and believing that there were indeed girls meant for me out in the world. And so she has remained to us, even as we enter our late 30s, definiantly clutching our Yo La Tengo albums and ignoring all electronica and rap.

The problem with that image of Liz Phair is she was NEVER that cool person we thought she was. She admitted it herself in interviews at the time (which made us love her more, of course). She’s not a musical genius. She maybe isn’t even that hip, God forbid. She’s a pretty girl with decent taste in music and art, with good lyrics and a penchant for giving smart, clever interviews. She fluked herself into indie music mythology by having the good sense to be quietly smart and stylish at a time when everyone else was screaming about fetuses and shooting themselves in the head.

So we should just forget about her, right?

But we can’t, because of these OTHER Ideas of Liz Phair. There’s the Smart Hip Mother images that she fostered on about half of whitechocolatespaceegg. How can you not like a Smart Hip Mom? Or how about the I Don’t Need To Be Cool Liz Phair of whip-smart? Or how about the I Want Desperately To Be A Pop Star And I Don’t Mind Telling You person of her last, Avrile Lavigne-ish albums liz phair? Or the perennial I Like Sex With Good Looking People, Here Let Me Tell You What That’s Like person (“Johnny Feelgood” “Flower”, and a hundred others).

These personalities float around my head whenever I listen to a Liz Phair album, and that’s before I even process the songs themselves.

And how ABOUT those songs? Well, they’re —- they’re — I mean, they’re ALL RIGHT. Right? They’re okay. They’re smart, they have decent hooks. They do some fun things sometimes. They do some hip things (“My Bionic Eyes”), and some whimsical things (the Peter Frampton guitar on “Someboday’s Miracle” or all the pop songs like “Extraordinary”), some things utterly without guile (“Friend of Mine”). But would anyone really like them, if they weren’t already into the Idea of The Singer behind it? I can no longer tell.

If anyone has read this far, I would like your opinion on this. Tony and Erik — you two are required to answer.

I’ve got some bad news, people. I feel compelled to write about baseball. Just for today.

My thoughts today are about Marvin Miller, who is one of the smartest people I’ve ever heard of. He was the head of the baseball player’s union in the 1970s, and in 1975, he won the right for players to be free agents. Before that time, once a player signed with a team, they were essentially stuck with that team for life. It meant players couldn’t shop their talents to the highest bidder. With free agency, players shopped themselves around — and salaries skyrocketed.

That story could make you HATE Marvin Miller, if you see him as the man who allowed baseball players to become a caste of millionaire crybabies. Or players who switch teams every few years. But I LOVE Marvin Miller, because I see him as the man who bested a group of BILLIONAIRE crybabies — the owners of the teams.

Do you know how hard it is to stop rich men and women from getting what they want? Marvin Miller made them hand over millions and millions of dollars to their employees — the players. And the owners were essentially powerless to stop him. All the lawyers they hired could not stop this one union leader. That’s because he was smarter, he was relentless and he was — in my opinion — right.

Anyway, in a chat on Friday on espn.com he spoke out against the steroid agreement (As of last week, if a player is caught once, he’s suspended without pay for FIFTY games. Twice, 100 games. Three times, and Major League Baseball bans the player for life.). Marvin Miller is the only person I’ve heard speak against it. And as is his style, he’s speaking against it in a manner that is articulate, confident and appalled. I love it. If it were anyone else, I’d likely ignore it. But when it’s Marvin Miller, I listen.

Here’s his chat. It’s long, but if you like people who are willing to fight the powers that be, it’s riveting:

Espn.Com Chat With Marvin Miller
Steve Dallas, TX: Marvin, do you agree with the new steroid policy, or is it too stiff?

SportsNation Marvin Miller: I totally disagree with the policy. WIth even the first step that was taken, namely random testing. The so-called “problem” of steroids is a scientific one, whether you’re dealing with the possible damage a person who took steroids would suffer or the question of whether steroids enhance or affect performance. I have no training in the physical sciences, or almost none, and I therefore consider myself unqualified to deal with either of those two questions. BUT, that is equally true of almost everybody in the media, in the Congress, or anywhere else that has been pontificating about steroids. They are totally unqualified. Therefore, I have yet to see the basis for testing at random of all players, or anybody else.

Fred in Schaumburg, IL: At what point would you say, if ever, that the Players Association has too much power?

SportsNation Marvin Miller: That is certainly a peculiar question at a time like this, when the Players Association has been showing the utmost of weakness, and agreeing to open a Collective Bargaining Agreement that had no reopening clause, in order to provide more punishment to possible users of steroids. When it has for a second time opened the same contract and agreed to more stringent penalties without any showing of cause or that a more stringent policy was justified. So I really don’t understand the question in the context of what’s happened. But outside that context, when you consider the fact that the union has membership only in Major League Baseball, and nowhere else, and that it deals with the organized owners of all the franchises, each of which includes some of the most wealthy people in the United States, I can not picture a situation where the players and the players union would be overly powerful.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Consider also that labor relations do not occur in a vacuum. Today, they occur in a climate of anti-union, right-wing republicans controlling both houses of the Congress, the White House and moving onto control of the courts. What this means, of course, is that all instruments of government are affected, including those who administer the labor laws.

Adrian Fung, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Mr. Miller: What issues do you predict will cause the most strife between management and the MLBPA as the expiration date of the current agreement approaches next winter?

SportsNation Marvin Miller: It’s tempting to say that what is front-and-center today, the so-called steroids and amphetimines issue, is likely to be prominent on a negotiating agenda. However, I think it important to remember that after the 1980 Collective Bargaining Agreement was negotiated, all subsequent negotiations were dominated by owner demands and stoppages caused by disputes over owner demands — NOT player demands. That being so, it’s hard for me to guess what the owners are going to want to put forth when the contract ends.

ChrisB from Paramus, NJ: Do you think that the punishment is enough? Personally I believe that allowing the statistics of a player that was caught cheating THREE times to remain on the books is absurd. I think alomg with the life time suspension, all the players statistics should be exsponged. What do you think? Also records of players that admit to using, but did so when there was no effect testing, should their statistics remain valid?

SportsNation Marvin Miller: The question assumes that use of steroids improves the performance of a Major League Baseball player. As I’ve already indicated, I don’t believe any evidence is available to demonstrate that. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single controlled, scientific test to establish that steroids improve the performance of any athlete, no less a Major League Baseball player. Therefore, I think it unwarranted to jump to a conclusion that a steroid user, even if it be demonstrated that he was a user, is having his statistics helped. Let me explain more….

SportsNation Marvin Miller: I think, without getting into the names of players, that the recent diatribes against players and urging that their records be deleted, without evidence, is irresponsible. Worse than that, it is chutzpah of the worst sort when the criticism about deleting records comes from someone who was frequently examined during a game because of allegations from opposing batters that he was gashing the ball with a sharp instrument. And in numerous cases, umpires would throw the baseball out of the game, even without throwing the pitcher out of the game. Some might call that cheating.

Bob, Boston: Mr. Miller don?t you see that the steroid issue is one of creditability and fan confidence. Also the Association?s purpose is to represent the players and the players themselves wanted strict penalties.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: I recognize fan interest, but I also recognize that they are without scientific knowledge. That they are clearly influenced by what they read in the newspapers, which is being written by those without scientific knowledge. And, more recently, have been inundated with Congressional hearings over television conducted by Congressmen and Senators without scientific knowledge. For your second part, the Association’s purpose is grounded in a Federal statute, which requires a union to act in the “best interests” of its members — not necessarily based on what some of the members erroneously think. I accept the fact that Donald Fehr has a problem that I didn’t have — namely, starting some years back, he has been directing a union without a single player member with major league experience prior to the union. That is a terrible problem. But more than that, you have left out the factor of leadership, and the responsibility of a union leader to help a membership come to rational conclusions rather than irrational ones.

Jason (Scarsdale NY): Mr. Miller, I am in the midst of John Helyar’s Lords of the Realm. Have you read it and if so, how true to life are his accounts of the stories?

SportsNation Marvin Miller: I have read it. I think it’s a well-written, informative book. I believe it is mostly accurate, although there are some incidents that were told to him by other people that differ from my recollection.

Simone (Miami, FL): Mr. Miller, why do you think that the media and Congress have focused on steriods is baseball when I believe that it more prevalent in the NFL?

SportsNation Marvin Miller: I doubt if I can prove this, but it certainly seems to me that the focus on baseball is due to a) their anti-union bias, and b) their belief that they will get greater attention and publicity in focusing on baseball. You raise an interesting question — without scientific knowledge, people are reduced to saying, “everybody knows.” I dare say that if you asked a fan who’s a steroid user, he or she would say, “I can tell by body shape,” and so on. My feeling along those lines has been, again without scientific knowledge, we’re guessing. But I find it more plausible that steroids would help the performance of, say, a football linebacker or a professional wrestler. I can see someone arguing that it improves the performance of a beer-hall bouncer. Possibly it helps someone becoming the governor of the largest state in the United States, which has already happened. But I think it strains credibility to argue without proof that steroids improve the ability to hit major league pitching. It’s been pointed out to me that it may, once you hit the ball, hit it farther. But even there I have my own doubts. I have watched home run hitters all my life. I can remember Reggie Jackson hitting a home run in the 1971 All-Star Game in Detroit, and I never saw anyone hit the ball as far. Not Babe Ruth, Not Lou Gehrig, not Jimmie Foxx, etc. Those of you who have seen Reggie Jackson know that he is not that big a man. He doesn’t have the so-called “steroids build”. So whether steroids would make Reggie hit the ball farther or not is a matter that will have to be debated elsewhere.

Scott (anaheim): Mr. Miller in your opinion which is worse Pete Rose betting on Baseball or Rafiel Palmerio Taking Steroids? Should some one found taking an Illegal substance be inelligable for the Hall of Fame?

SportsNation Marvin Miller: In each instance, the offense is breaking a rule of the game. I don’t know how to evaluate the two. What I have always found interesting is that, what I call the moralists of the game, are largely myopic in the sense that they only see PLAYER misdeeds. For example, the traditional worst blot is said to be the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, in which it was claimed that 8 players purposely threw the World Series. No one seems to mention the 1980s collusion of the owners, wherein they connived to agree not to improve their teams by signing a free-agent player who had previously played for another — and in so doing artificially affected not one World Series, but several entire seasons of championship games, and postseason series, including the World Series.

Chip (Richmond, VA): Mr. Miller- I really enjoyed “A Whole Different Ballgame”. I just finished it last night. What do you think of your former colleague Don Fehr’s performance as executive director in the face of steroids, basic agreements, etc.? Thanks!

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Prior to the steroids, my feeling is that Don Fehr has done a very good job as director of the players union — especially considering the problem that he has an entire membership that has no individual experience of what the union has done for the players. With regard to the steroids issue, based on what he has said to me, I think he has been overly influenced by what he sees as the anti-union political climate of this country and especially Washington DC. I think that it is defeatism of the worst sort to develop union policy based on what could be a losing case in court — that is, Senator McCain has threatened legislative action to provide more stringent testing and penalties against players than the union was willing to agree to before the most recent settlement. It’s defeatism to act like you’ve been defeated in court before you’ve even gotten there. I think that Senator McCain, Senator Bunning, etc., have been bluffing, and I have to say they were successful. They bluffed both Bud Selig and Don Fehr out of their pants. I want to add one other thing. In the case of Selig, it was not so much a case of bluff. Congress could wipe out the court-mandated exemption from the Antitrust laws. Congress could change the tax laws so that baseball owners who are permitted to reduce their taxes by depreciating the value of their players year by year — something that nonsports owners can not do. I do not think that the players union could be legislated against in a fashion that McCain and Bunning have threatened.

J.R. (NYC): Mr. Miller; If you truly believe that steriods do not give a player any type of advantage, then why do players use them, and put their bodies at tremendous risk to do so?

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Players and others have been known to take things, that is ingest them, or do other things in the hope of improving performance — when in fact it’s all in their heads. I can recall, when I was Director, a player who shall be nameless told me that he always took amphetimines before a game, and that it improved his performance. He was not a well-known player, and I was not familiar with his record. At the first opportunity, I asked his teammates about his statement — and they convulsed with laughter. They said they could always tell when he took amphetimines before a game, because he would boot the ball two or three times in the early innings, and he would come to the bench and exult how wonderful he was playing, and how well he felt.

Aaron (allston): With all due respect Mr. Miller, the circumstancial evidence is over-whelming.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: I’m not sure what circumstantial evidence you’re referring to. However, I’ve heard people tell me that the evidence is that Barry Bonds, when he was a younger player, he had a completely different body build — he was slender, and when he got older he got much heavier and bigger. And that that was their circumstantial evidence. I’ve asked such people if they had seen Babe Ruth in his prime, as a young player. Because I had. I saw him in 1925 when I was 8 years old. I saw him in 1927 when he hit 60 home runs. Babe Ruth at that time had a body build that was more like Ted Williams. He had skinny legs. When he got older, he got heavier. Who doesn’t? If that’s the circumstantial evidence you’re talking about, it doesn’t mean much. I have not said that I don’t believe that steroids, together with appropriate diet and appropriate exercise, do not increase musculature and body weight. I’ve seen the same things you have. But what I have not seen is evidence that has linked that to performance.

Michael (Portland, ME): For someone who does a lot of talking (typing), you still haven’t acknowledged what a bad thing it is to use controlled substances!

SportsNation Marvin Miller: This going to be a long answer.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Whether one agrees with a particular law or not, the law should be observed. That’s not the question here. Certain types of steroids are considered controlled substances — for the last few years. Do not forget the fact that it’s comparatively recent. But nevertheless, that’s the law. I have said that there hasn’t been a single controlled scientific test to my knowledge indicating that basis of the law — that it is damaging to people’s health. Nevertheless, I think when there is doubt, and before scientific has established it beyond a doubt, that it is prudent to ban a substance. I heartily disapprove of then washing your hands just because you’ve passed the law. You’ve banned it. Now find the scientific truth for basis in banning it…..

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Enforcement of a law is what is not understood by people. All federal statutes passed by Congress, signed by the president, have to be enforced. And enforcement is done by the United States Department of Justice, which has U.S. Attorneys in just about every population center throughout the United States. In addition, in the Justice Dept., officials have access to the F.B.I., which reports to the Attorney General. And the F.B.I. is available for the investigation of crime and violation of federal statutes. When evidence has been gathered, the Dept. of Justice is able to convene grand juries and indict those they feel are guilty. They have a complete staff of attorneys for prosecuting cases either before a judge or before a judge and jury…..

SportsNation Marvin Miller: There is nothing that would stop a Senator McCain, or other Congressmen or Senators, from taking all the necessary steps to make sure that the statute that they passed is enforced. This is the first time, in what has been a relatively long life, that I can remember the Congress taking a position that private industry, in this case a private employer and the union representing the employees of those employers, has the responsibility for enforcing the law. It is as if, during prohibition for example, and it was quote-unquote “well-known” that newspaper people drank, the Congress said to The New York Times, and other papers, unless you test your reporters and provide suitable penalties, the Congress will do it for you. Frankly, it’s outrageous what McCain, Bunning & Co. have done. They don’t have the authority to do what they claim…..

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Look at the statute and the penalties. You will not find that a violator will be suspended from his occupation or his profession. If they thought that was the appropriate penalty, why isn’t it in the statute? No one should be puzzled at the behavior we’ve seen from the Congress. They have attorneys on their staff, and they know that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents government — federal, state or local — from random search or inspection or testing of an entire population of a state, company, or street. It’s simply unconstitutional. The bluffing game that they have put on is to avoid having to enforce their own law, which they don’t know how to do.

Rhett (CHI): Enough steroid talk!!! Mr. Miller, with regard to the reserve clause. After the court cases which ruled that players were no longer “property” of franchises, technically, every player could have been a free agent every year. Why did u settle on 6 years of service before becoming a free agent? Why not 5 years etc… Or were the owners so stunned that they gladly took 6 years of service before being a free agent.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Hey, I’m answering the questions people are asking me…..First, the initial settlement after the Messersmith arbitration decision provided that at the end of the 1976 season, which was when we were negotiating this, all players would have the same rights as Messersmith and McNally — in other words, all those players who did not sign a new contract for 1976, and played under renewed contracts, had the right at the end of the ‘76 season to declare free agency as Messersmith did at the end of the 1975 season. Then came the task of negotiating a framework for the future. The arbitration decision, after all, involved just two players. Now we had to negotiate an entire new system for the indefinite future — and there were many ramifications we don’t have the time to do into, but one of them was the number of years a player had to play before gaining the right to free agency…..

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Some of what the owners suggested was ridiculous — 10 years, 9 years, and combined it with the proviso that if the player were offered the average salary in the major leagues he wouldn’t have the right to free agency, and so on. It was a long negotiation to determine what an appropriate number of years of service would be. This is a bit like the steroid problem in that we didn’t have any facts. What would be the optimum provision to benefit players in the future? No statistics were available. . My analysis was, unspoken, that if we insisted that the arbitrator’s decision on Messersmith should be the standard — namely one year of major league service and a second year under a renewed contract — I felt was not the optimum for the players because it would mean, almost literally, that everyone would be a free agent every year. And if the supply of free agents was that great, it was conceivable that it would have no upward impact on salaries at all…..

SportsNation Marvin Miller: At some point, we proposed 4 years, and in face ot the opposition moved to 5. In the final analysis we moved to 6 provided two things — that a player with 5 years could demand a trade at the end of that fifth year provided his contract didn’t extend beyond that, and that any player with the required number of years of service to be a free agent who had a multiyear contract and was traded before that contract expired, acquired the right to become a free agent at the end of that season. In other words, if as a free agent you sign a contract with a team that trades you, you regain your right to free agency. I can’t say I knew that 6 years was the right number. I still can’t. It was a negotiated figure. It was a guess. It was virtually a certainty that it was better for the players than a 1-year for supply-and-demand reasons.

Tony (Chicago): Mr. Miller I understand at the time the union started there was a substantial need, however now that most MLB players are millionaires is it still needed? They now all have a team of lawyers that can help them formulate thier contracts.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: Is union still needed? Without a Collective Bargaining Agreement and without a union, examine for a moment what would, but could, happen. An employer — in baseball or in any industry — that is not checked by a union of its employees can determine any and all working conditions that are lawful. That includes in baseball’s case reinstating a reserve clause. That includes changing the minimum salary from $300,000 to $6,000, as it was before the union. (Or at least something that satisfies minimum-wage laws.) An employer unchecked by a union has only two considerations — what’s the law, and, “What do I have to do to recruit the necessary personnel?” Practical business considerations. Yes, many players are millionaires today. But the major leaguers of the future could well face conditions such as those that existed before the union.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: I’ll take one or two more.

casey (TX): do you think the players’ union should have a say in who the commissioner of baseball is? that might make it more possible to have a commissioner who is less biased toward management.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: The commissioner of baseball is, first and foremost, an employee of management and ownership. It is no more practical to consider that the chairman of the board of General Motors should be recruited, appointed, compensated, powers determined, by the autoworkers as well as the stockholders. There is nothing wrong the owners of the baseball franchises selecting their own spokesperson to represent their interests. What WAS wrong, in earlier years, was the pretense that the commissioner, an owner employee, could represent everybody — the owners, the players, the umpires, the public, the fans — when in fact he had only one mandated loyalty, and that was to the owners.

Michael (Portland, ME): Marvin, what’s wrong with random testing? After seeing what happened in pro cycling, it’s the only way to keep everyone in line…

SportsNation Marvin Miller: This is a good one to end on. It is true that random testing is legal when performed by an employer, or by agreement between an employer and a union. It is not legal if attempted by a government in the United States — federal, state or local. The question is what you believe is appropriate in American society. Our Constitution says, or suggests, that it’s not appropriate to invade the privacy of individuals — that the desire to “keep people in line,” as you say, is limited by their rights as individuals. For example, there are laws our public safety which make it illegal to carry explosives in our cars. It’s obviously desirable to keep people obeying that law. But our Constitution says you can’t search their homes or cars or garages or their person without getting a court order for such a search. And in order to get that court order, you must come before a judge of appropriate jurisdiction, and establish in sworn testimony probable cause to believe that the person you want to search is, in fact, violating the law. Some people might say that we’re not talking about the government here. But McCain sure was.

SportsNation Marvin Miller: OK, everyone. Thank you for your questions. I’ve enjoyed it.

I drove down to the laundromat early this morning in my shlumpiest form: hair sticking up, face unshaven, glasses sliding down my greasy nose, Sandman T-shirt hanging out untucked and big dumpy brown coat sliding around my shoulders — all while lugging an enormous sack of crusty clothes. As I got out of my car, a red sedan sped by with the driver shouting out the window:

“Channnelll one oh twooooooooooooooooooooooooo!”

That guy is either a friend of mine, or was just randomly shouting out the name of that web site to any and all who would listen on Metropolitan Avenue at around 8 thie morning.

I’ve been cleaning my apartment all evening, and while doing so I sank into an odd daydream that I lived in the world of the (HBO mob family drama) The Sopranos. Not as a mobster, just a guy who worked in a generic seedy gambling/strip joint as a second or third assistant to the owner, who was a cocaine-sniffing crook.

In my daydream, mob lieutenant Christopher comes bursting into the place, furious that we had fallen behind in our “protection” payments by $15,000. The guys higher than me were trying to buy time, while Christopher started breaking furniture and fingers. I calmly walked over to the safe and gave him its contents — about $10,000. I collected another $3,000 from everyone in the place. I then explained to Christopher that my boss was a cocaine-sniffing lout who had run off with the revenue, but I could get him the rest at the bank within 2 hours. Christopher calmed down and got me promoted to run the seedy gambling/strip joint where I turned it into a profitable and well-organized venture and never got my fingers broken.

What can I say? I like to solve problems. Unimportant ones, that exist in a convulted and fictional setting. But problems nonetheless.

In an unrelated point, here’s an old Mr. Kotter Halloween costume:

This was referred to me by my high school friend Scott Sustek who apparently wore this in first grade. Click it to see other horrible Halloween costumes.

I was sitting on the subway yesterday, reading Alan Moore’s and Dave Gibbon’s comic book epic Watchmen. The guy sitting next to me, a thin 40ish guy with a business suit, nods at it and says to me:

“V is coming out soon.”
“What’s that?”
“V, the movie of V for Vendetta [another Alan Moore comic] is coming out soon.”
“Oh, yeah. I saw the trailer. It looks good.”
“Yeah, it should be awesome.”
“I hope so.”
“I saw you reading that and I thought maybe you were boning up on all your Alan Moore classics in prepartion.”
“No, I’m just re-checking that issue 5 is truly symmetrical. I read that it’s laid out so the last panel reflects the first, second-to-last reflects the second.”
“Oh.”
“Yeah.”

Neither of us took off our mp3 players during this conversation.

I was teaching an improv class last night, and Al Long was doing a very funny monologue as a depressed husband sadly complaining about his wife. I thought it might get better if he also talked about things he liked about his wife, so I interrupted him,

“Try talking about why you love her.”
“Okay, Um… well, hmmm… ”
“Anything you like, ever.”
“Yeah, well.. she’s… um… a real pretty lady.”
“Right, good.”
“Yeah, a real pretty lady.”
“Good face,” I suggested.

The whole class turned its collective heads to me, brows furrowed. I realized that the phrase “good face” had sounded really creepy and weird, somehow. I just meant it to be an example of a specific thing you could say about someone, but it came out as if I were a serial killer, assesing my prey: “Good face, my precious. You will be a suitable trophy for my wall.”

I kept staring straight ahead at Al, attempting to defy reality and pretend that it hadn’t sound weird.

“Yeah, good face. Like, she’s pretty.”
Al kinda looked at me.
“Okay, it sounded weird,” I admitted.

But everyone laughed and no one arrested me.

It was funny.

Who wouldn’t?

My five-minute pilot (co-created with Matt DeCoster and Terry Jinn) “The Block” was selected for another episode, folks. If you’d like, check it out the first episode here, and look for a second, kick-ass installment come January sometime.

http://www.willhines.net/102/block2.mov

I have a deep, horrible-sounding cough that makes me sound like the plague victims from the beginning of The Stand. I can feel the itch in the back of my throat, about halfway down my windpipe. That’s eerie. But cool. Maybe I’m turning into a robot warrior. Or about to mutate into a winged demon. It could be.

Matt DeCoster, Terry Jinn and I made a five minute television pilot called “The Block” for Channel 102, and it will be part of their screening this Tuesday night. Check it out, if you’d like! 8:30pm at the Anthology Film Archives.