Mister Faded Glory | www.misterfadedglory.com

Slate’s business blog, The Big Money, has a post today comparing two behemoth corporations and their two “rival” Free WiFi networks. This is no doubt prompted by Starbucks’ recent decision to launch Free WiFi in all stores this fall

The writer, Dan Mitchell, is a little frustrated with the public reaction to Starbucks’ mammoth announcement. He’s ticked off at Gawker’s snarky indictment of Starbucks. He’s presumably not amused by any assertion that Starbucks is preparing to control the world. He defends the coffee chain thusly:

“… Several people have [noted] that McDonald’s has been offering free Wi-Fi in its stores for a while now. But here’s the thing: Would you rather work or read Facebook in a McDonald’s, with its too-bright lights, its noise, its often-obnoxious clientele, and its burning-cow-flesh stench, or in the much friendlier environs of a Starbucks? Sure, Starbucks can seem a bit ersatz (again, thanks mostly to its ubiquity rather than to anything specific), but, still. Starbucks is usually fairly quiet and comfortable—the lighting is mellow, and it smells like coffee, not cow flesh. McDonald’s now offers coffee that’s about good as Starbucks’ … but that doesn’t make sitting in a McDonald’s much less unpleasant. McDonald’s is just fine for quickly wolfing down some fried, greasy meat on a bun. It’s not so great for lingering over a nice cuppa.

Another thing: Unlike McDonald’s, Starbucks’ free Wi-Fi will include free access to the Wall Street Journal. This is ingenuous for both Starbucks and the Journal. And it’s something that further illustrates Starbucks’ appeal: It’s for more literate people, and it knows it.”

Off topic, but I do wonder if either McDonald’s or Starbucks is a corporate sponsor of The World Cup, and exactly which one would infuriate phony soccer purists more. And sure, I think Starbucks’ decision and its publicity is a good move.

But Mitchell clearly doesn’t comprehend the McDonalds WiFi strategy. Worse yet, he relies on the wrong generalizations of the two WiFi audiences to compare the two chains. (For example, I’d argue that Starbucks’ clientele is just as “often-obnoxious” as McDonald’s. In my opinion, a lack of pompous Slate writers catching up on their Wall Street Journal feed is a point in Mac’s favor.) And instead, he proves his marketing ignorance.

Think about all the business travel you do. Even if you don’t travel for work – whether by plane, train, or auto, chances are you know someone who does. You know a lot of people who do. Think, also, about the number of ways you’re plugged in at all times when you (or someone else) hits on the road. Cell phone, Blackberry, iPhone, Android, IPad, you name it.

It’s enormously easy to stay in touch with your desktop while traveling. But still, failing all these devices, there are still some occasions when you absolutely need a laptop and a WiFi signal. And, on the heels of a successful branding campaign, just where do you think you might go?

Well, you might very well go to McDonalds. After all, they’re everywhere. And you know you’ve got WiFi. You might duck into an airport store. You might pull off the interstate and fire up your laptop. You might even research your road trip beforehand – knowing precisely when and where you can exit the freeway and dash off a necessary email or memo. I know, because I’ve done exactly that.

And when this happens, you don’t care about the clientele. You don’t care about fat content. You don’t care if McCafe coffee resembles Starbucks in any way, shape, or form. You care only that Mickey D’s has free Wifi, you need it, and you can use it in a pinch.

McDonalds WiFi doesn’t appeal to people who want to eat or spend any time at McDonalds. It appeals to the consumer who knows they might need Wifi at a moment’s notice. By positioning for those consumers, McDonald’s has backed into a market previously off their radar. And backed into a market, I’m guessing, that has exponentially increased in recent years. And despite the scoffs of Slate or Mitchell, I would also bet that McDonalds’ brand equity has increased similarly.

Plus, their fries are awesome. Bet you can’t get those at Starbucks!

Busy week back, right?

By now, hopefully you’ve told your friends that Mister Faded Glory is back, he’s here to stay, and if this were 2001 – he’d be on the cutting-fucking-edge of blogging.  It would also be nice if you mentioned I’m brilliant.

A few other topics bounded through my brain this week, didn’t make it to Twitter, and weren’t quite up to the task of dampening my ever-souring mood. Now that you’re on the edge of your seat, here you go.

• From our contrarian friends at Slate: American beer sales are flat because the beer is terrible.

I’m paraphrasing of course, but that’s the gist of The Big Money’s assertion, also doffing a cap to the continued expansion and relative strength of “blue-collar” (or blue-collar-poseur) brands PBR and Yuengling. TBM cites their growing market share due to becoming veritable “hipster” beers (and wouldn’t Slate know…) simply by staying true to bursting flavor, chewable  aftertaste, thudding hangovers, and tried-and-true formula. (I remember one year my local college liquor store was liquidating its Pabst Light. Three bucks for a case, and one could easily drink 30 cans in a night. It tasted like pickle juice. Ah, memories.)

Anyway, it’s kind of nice to imagine the crappy brands of American beer suffering as the public grows (gasp!) some taste. (Also, The Big Lead only drinks Coors Light. Judge if you must.)

But it’s even more fun to imagine the Slate eggheads writing this evaluation of the beer market, attempting to snidely choose which brand to turn their noses up.

• “Ugh…Pabst. Disgusting. But I can’t wait to have one. It’s so lame, it’s cool.”
• “I only drink lagers brewed in the west end of Prague. Budweiser? What am I, a Republican?
  
• “I prefer Miller Red, when was the last time you saw anyone drinking that? Exactly.”
• “Samuel Adams would turn in his grave if he (a) drank his tepid lager, or (b) knew that the state of Massachusetts features a governor like Mitt Romney. Bah!”
• “I found a place on the upper west side that serves only two beers: Red Dog in a tin can or Nebraska’s own Hopluia - served out of a Derby hat. Phenomenal!”

• The inimitable John Feinstein, who might even be more cantankerous than me. (Of course, he can easily afford to be more cantankerous than me.) eloquently and pointedly responded to the perfect-game and bad-call circumstances that blew up Twitter earlier this week. Allow me to sum up my thoughts:

The perfect game and bad-call in Detroit turned my stomach. I wasn’t mad; I felt pity for both the no-name pitcher, Armando Galarraga, and Jim Joyce, the Ulysses-writing umpire. The pitcher lost his (probably only) day in the sun, and the umpire gained a day in the sun he couldn’t have wanted. And normally, I roll my eyes at the Twitterati (BOO) and the knee jerk sports talkers, who claimed the Commish needs to STEP IN NOW WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE RIGHT THIS WRONG FIX THIS PROBLEM BUD BRING IN INSTANT REPLAY AND MAKE THIS SHIT MORE LIKE THE NFL.

It was downright exhausting. The commentary and idiocracy made the whole situation more untenable than it really was, which actually served as an uplifting portrait of human nature. Read Pos’ fantastic post if you don’t believe me.

Enter Feinstein, who argues for the best solution in points so eloquent and incisive that it deserves reprint:

“There is NO reasonable argument against this. To those who say Selig is setting a dangerous precedent I say this: fine. Let him declare that at any time in the future if a pitcher gets the first 26 outs of a game and then fails to get the 27th on a clearly blown call by an umpire who instantly says he blew the call, he will do the same thing. There’s your precedent. Now let’s sit back and wait for it to happen again.

Last night, Ken Burns, the noted baseball historian, was on Keith Olbermann’s show. He started going on about ‘unraveling the sweater,’ by reversing this call. He brought up Bucky Dent’s home run [and corked bat] … He mentioned the Giants stealing signs prior to the Bobby Thomson home run and Mark McGwire’s steroid-induced home runs.

Oh please. Those are ridiculous analogies. For one thing, they involve cheating, not an out-and-out honest mistake that has been confessed to by the person who made the mistake.”

He goes on, and it’s worth your time. As for me, I totally agree. John failed to mention, however, that whatever decision “Baseball purists” would make, we should always do the opposite.

I love baseball. But I cannot stand the traditionalist pomp, circumstance and poetry that the self-righteous protectors of the game (like Burns, above) continually quote in order to preserve tradition or soliloquys or baseball sonnets or days of yore. You won’t find a slice of fanhood more pretentious. Not until the World Cup begins, anyway.

• I was going to link to this Procrastination Test (h/t Lifehacker), as sort of a public service. I would take it first, and then inform you all whether or not it delivered an accurate assessment.

However, once I got to the test, it looked sort of long and arduous. So I minimized the window, put it aside, and announced I’d do it later.

(looks around.)

THUD.

Oh, come on. HUMOR LIKE THIS is why you come back to Mister Faded Glory. ADMIT IT.

Give credit to those ridiculous contrarians at Slate. Just when I think they can’t be more aggravating or contrived, they churn out reactionary tripe like this: Creed is Good.

(Up next from Slate: 9/11 – Was it really all that bad?)

Give them a hand. While we waited for the phony revolutionaries of the reactionary to again roll their eyes and bag on the latest fad ranging from the genius to the sublime (Slate Explainer: Cuddly Kittens Are Evil!), they decide differently, and pony up 2000 words of schlocky praise for the worst band of all fucking time, who no one cares about or likes or even considered since 1997. Horrific.

In other news, I apologize, it’s been somewhat sparse around here lately. Believe it or not, Mister Faded Glory is busy with other things in the traditional media/publishing world. Not that you care. And don’t think we didn’t notice, Entertainment Weekly, that you rated Batman No. 18 on the list of Coolest All-Time Heroes in Pop Culture. Right behind Nancy Drew? Eighteenth? Excuse me, I feel faint.

Also, we’d be remiss if we did not wish a happy birthday to Pearl Jam. Nineteen today. Wow, I guess we’re all getting old. Luckily we all still rock harder than ever.

I see you laughing.

Your fourth of July weekend is here. Strangely enough, while you’re all drunk on cheap beer by noon, Mister Faded Glory will be toiling at work, somehow, somewhy.

It’s enough to make you detest America’s Birthday summer’s annual celebration of excess. But not as much as our friends at Slate. Sigh. I’m betting on June of 2011 for the “Puppies Suck” article.

In between a disgustipating sinus infection, a week’s worth of sun and siesta in Puerto Vallarta, a week crammed with work-related seminar action and a friend’s surprise birthday party, MFG has been missing in action for quite some time. What the fuck happened to January?

Speaking of which, why does anyone ask ‘What did you do on your vacation?’ only to recoil when you claim, ‘nothing.’ Isn’t that the point of a vacation?. Oh, whatever. Notably, I made friends with a giraffe.

His completely unoriginal name is Jeffrey.

Also, in case you’re concerned, a smartmouth bird nearly bit my hand off at a petting zoo. He’s right here.

I don’t know his name, but the bastard is still at large. At least my hand is miraculously intact.

Oh, what, you really don’t care? So people must ask about vacations simply as a rhetorical device, right? (Laughs uproariously at ridiculous pun.)  But, really, how could anyone possibly care? I mean, with all the stuff that’s happened while I was away? Quickly, onto the hopelessly catty commentary:

Tony Dungy, gone. Everyone saw it coming, everyone is a tad melancholy, and just like the vanilla Dungy, commentary dissipated with nary a blink of an eye. Colts fans will miss him. As long as the new guy focuses on the O- and D-Line, we’ll be happy.

Herm Edwards, gone. The NFL is a peculiar league. Its postseason disappears in the blink of an eye, and the ubiquitous league is irrelevant for most diehard fans who have no playoff team to follow. As such, the heaviest commentary, reporting, speculation, and web hits surround dismissals of coaches. I guess that’s OK, it’s just fairly weird. And Herm Edwards sucked. And we love Joe Poz, but his Pollyanna act is ridiculous. Herm will live.

JD and Elliot, back together. Who didn’t see this coming? Also, Scrubs is in a weird, season-fattening loop owing to last year’s writer’s strike and ABC’s desire to fill airtime. Each hour of Scrubs features one viable episode and one ridiculous episode (Tonight’s features the Muppets, of all things.) Normally I’d pick apart JD and Elliot’s relationship further, but it’s also perhaps a sign the show is well past its prime that I’m simply ambivalent. But the tongue-in-cheek references to early episodes? Nice touch for us sex buddies. (trumpets) I mean, us diehards.

Oh, almost forgot, Jon Gruden, also gone. Speaking of the peculiar NFL, it’s almost as though coaches’ accountability is rendered moot with increasing pompousness, bombasticity (?) and sneering. Until this happened, let alone to the NFL’s hardest working coach, to hear each of his sycophantic reporters tell it (he gets up at 3 a.m.!).

Slumdog Millionaire was surprisingly good. In a year filled with flawed pictures, I wouldn’t be disappointed if Slumdog earned best picture. It’s not as good as last year’s power-pack of No Country For Old Men or There Will Be Blood, nor as good as, ahem, The Dark Knight. But its sly tale wrapped in the coalescence of chance, fate, offhand knowledge and destiny is an enjoyable ride. You’ll never guess who doesn’t like it.

Yes, I’m a 31-year-old white guy toiling on facebook. And I’m sorry that many of my status updates later show up as blog items. I can’t help it if you’re bored, there’s only so much wisdom bounding around my cranium. Apologies for the inconvenience. (Yes, I still hate fucking Twitter.) But MFG’s upcoming multimillion-dollar project will be the creation of hatebook, a facebook knock-off filled enemies instead of casual acquaintances you used to pretend to ignore. How genius is that? This serves as notice of intent, copyright lawyers.

As a pet owner, we enjoyed Bill Simmons’ recent column. Bill obviously is angling for some future ESPN radio spot by podcasting every day for umpteen hours. So who’s going to break it to him that his voice is way too grating for a massive audience? Occasionally, between phoned-in columns, he pens a column that reminds you why you started reading him in the first place. As a pet owner, this ode to the late Dooze made it, shall we say, a bit dusty in here.

KSK’s Peter King. Nothing in the universe is funnier than Drew’s weekly excoriation of Peter King’s ridiculous MMQB. Nothing at all. I know not why I even try blogging, let alone why I craft a predictable first-draft list column reminiscent of the bubbly King. I’ll shut up.

The Cubs now have a new owner. You try and figure out if the Cubs were better off with the incompetent Chicago Tribune, psychopathic Sam Zell, or the mysteriously devious Tom Rickets pulling the strings. We just hope they can survive the Kevin Gregg era. AND WHAT THE HELL WAS CARLOS MARMOL DOING PITCHING IN THE D.R. OVER THE OFFSEASON? Last year his arm almost fell off at midseason, and he’s coming off two years of overwork. How could the Cubs permit this? You’d think the Cubs didn’t know what they were doing. Shocking, I know.

Finally, the uninspiring Super Bowl is upon us, as we mentioned, on the heels of an uninspiring college bowl season. Both postseasons turned out so forgettable they inspired some normally rational Football Outsiders, and some normally rational college football writers to postulate whether the regular season in the NFL is rendered meaningless either by parity or a third “surprise team” to make the title game in the last three seasons.

These types of comments are totally self-interested, offered out of fear the writer may not know more than his audience: If the Super Bowl doesn’t represent the two best teams in PFP, clearly it doesn’t reflect the best quality teams overall. Call me crazy, but the NFL’s season doesn’t exist to rubber-stamp FO’s publications. In fact, it’s completely ludicrous when college football fanatics – or any writers, fans, talking heads, for that matter – whine that “the best team doesn’t always win” in other sports.

Because, yes, of course they fucking do.

In the NCAA, they win six games in a row. In baseball, teams survive a double-elimination tournament, or three rounds of elimination baseball. In the NFL, even the Indianapolis Colts, and New York Giants earn the right to be champions by winning four games in a row. I’m sorry, but in any of those leagues, if you make it through the denoted gauntlet, you deserve to win; and to be called the best.

It’s paramount arrogance that a web site assumes its stats, logic or analysis superior to the results on the field. That may not be a direct statement, but it’s the implication, it’s perpetually unfounded, and it indicates myopia at best and ignorance at worst.

No one watches sports hoping for an endorsement of anyone’s preseason web prognostications, no matter how complete and data-driven the predictions may be. We watch in suspense, hoping and waiting to find out who can emerge from the pack. And that’s who the best is. Period.

That said, Mister Faded Glory has called Pittsburgh the best team all year. So we expect them to win. See, complete hypocrisy, mixed tenses, hopelessly long posts, catty diatribes, unnecessary fucking cursing; you’re glad I’m back. Admit it.

You probably tuned in tonight for some witty update about the Florida-Oklahoma game. Or about legions of K-State fans cheering for Oklahoma in some pathetic attempt to convey relevance. Or maybe even a subtle dig at Fox, trotting out the insufferable Thom Brenneman and some intern to call the game. C’mon, Fox! It’s the National Championship.

Or perhaps for further commentary on the exodus of Jason Marquis. Or a wrap on last night’s Syracuse win over DePaul. Or preview of Cuse-Rutgers. Or simple wondering how they drew the absolute easiest Big East teams to start the year.

Perhaps a review of Tuesday’s double-edged return of Scrubs? (A solid ‘meh.’ But the intern who likes chubs was funny.)

Maybe even a gloat, for I have stared into the belly of some weird sinus infection-cold plaguing the Midwest and recalling The Stand, and I am about to win. (/coughs.)

Perhaps you’ve chosen MFG for some commiseration – no doubt you’ve glanced at Slate‘s ultra-pretentious movie club to learn (shocking) that the snotty fanzine approves of absolute dreck you wouldn’t see in a million years, and is just now (upon further review!) panning The Dark Knight.  Oh, Slate. How much smarter than us are ye?

(Ahem. The Dark Knight is by far the year’s best film. Not the plodding Ben Button. Not the unintentionally comedic Gran Torino. Not the insufferable Man on Wire. Not even Definitely Maybe. In the  last month you’ve no doubt noticed critics racing to outdo each other in their ten-best lists. It’s The Dark Knight. It’s not close.)

But nope, MFG will be going dark for nearly two weeks. We wish this was because of noble work pursuits, but in fact, it’s time for a vacation. Along with the suntanned Ms. Faded Glory, we’re heading to beautiful Puerto Vallarta for a week of R-and-R. Since corporate America makes you pay for playing, I’ll be snowed under with phony work upon our return.  So hold my calls. Talk to you then.

Not that I’m joining the rabble of conservatives eagerly slapping high fives after VP nominee Sarah Palin displayed effusive charisma (at least more than expected) during her speech last night. I simply wanted to write that headline. Hee!

Nor am I among certain insecure louts or bobbleheads who worry about Palin’s family and marriage and all that stuff, or chauvinists who call her shrill. Or old-boy proponents who lock themselves in the bathroom of their ivory tower and a copy of her Vogue mag article, thrilled to find a polished, eager young upstart within a cantankerous party of fossils. To read the media today, you’d think a seismic shift in voter zeitgeist occurred after Palin‘s address. News to them: it hasn’t.

I simply marvel at the swoon, swell, and circus following convention moments like these. This was a VP speech at a political convention. Everyone’s speeches, so far, at these two conventions, have apparently been AWESOME. Obama, Biden, Palin, Clinton, Giuliani, Michelle Obama, other Clinton – everyone is FREAKING FANTASTIC. Always, it’s JUST WHAT THE PARTY NEEDS. (Unless it’s Mark Warner’s snoozefest.) And again, predictably, last night, Tina Fey Sarah Palin was AMAZING  – and now the Democrats should be worried, writes Slate’s John Dickerson. Please, people.

Convention speeches always are absurd pie-in-the-sky pep talks, rousing a party and whipping up frenzy. To debate and analyze the content and delivery ad nauseum is a complete waste of time. It’s a political convention, designed to spark either party;s elite before the fall. The cheers and rallies aren’t exactly political mandates, binding contract, or sermons on the mount.

Secondly, Palin is a VP nominee. How is Sarah Palin going to damage a presidential ticket, either hers or Obama’s? Have you, as a voter, ever really cast a ballot based on the VP race? I know I haven’t. In what year has the VP choice ever really mattered?

As a voter, you don’t a choose the ticket as a sum of parts – you choose for one leader. You vote for one office, the president, and the head candidate. Sure, it’s nice if the VP happens to be a capable policy champion, but it’s not necessary he even comprehends policy in the least.

It’s simply astonishing to assume this VP choice is any more important than years prior, just as it’s counterintuitive to assume voters weigh VP candidates as eventual presidents. In no way, in no election is the choice of a backup paramount to the choice of the ACTUAL commander-in-chief who will, presumably, govern. Ludicrous. It’s a mistake as a voter, to “stockpile” a prez choice just in case we might see them later. That’s like pulling Carlos Zambrano after six innings, saving him for a possible game four. But you knew that.

I know, I know, you’re all sick of me railing on this Manny Ramirez trade, but two final notes. First, in the interest of equal-time provisions within our War On Slate, we’re obligated to comment nearly every time the elitist portal offers something worthwhile.

Yesterday, noted Boston sportswriter Charley Pierce (somewhat of a renegade; the Manny of Boston sportswriting, if you will) piped up in Slate, his sage voice of reason detailing last week’s bizarre trade and resulting saga.  It’s a fantastic read, Pierce perfectly encapsulating the nuances, perspective and sheer lunacy surrounding the Red Sox’ recent, misguided propaganda campaign. Pierce favorably compares Ramirez to Yaz and Teddy Ballgame, two other Boston baseball players celebrated for their quirks, rather than demeaned.

Secondly, Manny Ramirez made his debut last night in Los Angeles. With Walter Alston‘s No. 24 retired at Chavez Ravine,  Manny gleefully departed outside his number box, selecting the hideously ugly No. 99. Petulant, rebellious, unique, ridiculous – Words simply cannot describe how fantastic this is.

Quick day today, we’re almost out the door for the weekend. However, you’ve no doubt read my personal hand-wringing over the versimilitude of The Wire’s questions and themes during the final season, which wraps up on March 9 (March 3 for us on-demanders).

Occasionally Newsweek does some solid work, such as dispatching a critical and well-versed fan of The Wire to interview executive producer David Simon. (Newsweek’s corporate partner Slate, for example, dispatches snooty journalists to decry all seasons of the show. Seems to me a real journalist supremely defensive of the medium wouldn’t be writing for an elitist maxi-blog. Zing! Also, that’s me, the pot.)

Simon offers an extreme amount of insight into the final season, and delivers several accurate defenses of his season five themes. Simon’s copy typically reads like a bitter, jaded professor, but he allows vital insight into the careful crafting of the penultimate season, and nicely hints at the coalescence of all his narrative themes.

We can’t print spoilers, but suffice it to say a line at the end of Episode Eight neatly sums up everything about all five seasons. In two more weeks, it will be over, and like a book you can’t wait to finish, can’t bear to put down, and spend full nights immersing yourself, we’ll feel powerfully exhausted, deeply saddened, and somewhat vacant when it’s gone.

“But I bought into it. I bought into it, big time. I’m part of the problem. (smack).” Nick Nolte as Head Coach Pete Bell, Blue Chips*

I’ll admit it, I fell right into their trap. You remember my mea culpa, right? (Actually, it’s the last thing I wrote. Eep.) Well, it stands. But after earnest soul-searching, I’ve discovered the cause of my mistake.

I’ve totally been Slate-d!

I fell right into their trap, and as a holier-than-thou, fully elitist snob, I began an inquisition into the folly of The Wire’s Season Five bend, specifically its Baltimore Sun story arc, pointing out even the most minimal flaw.

Now, after episode 6 and 7, it’s plainly clear that The Wire isn’t fully epitomatic of the exact minutiae of all the institutions it covers. Instead, it relies on story – and remarkably so on symmetry, themes, character duplicity, archetypes, stereotypes, and conflict. Duly noted – it’s not an expose, it’s a novel, or a TV show. And, if you consider it one of the greats (as we do), then it’s best to enjoy it instead of nitpicking each intricacy. It’s impossible to fully appreciate or even accurately review a show while looking down your nose squarely at readers. But that’s become Slate’s critique of The Wire. This is nothing new, however.

• Remember? Slate’s hard-hitting evisceration of Fletch? Not funny!
• How about their whine or opine about Mr. Obama’s presidential candidacy? He’ll fail!
• Scoffing at writers’ strike results? Not enough!
• Enjoy delicious chocolate? You’re gonna die!
• Seriously, dude. French wine – and french sommeliers – are so passe.
• Pfft. We knew the Patriots were bad. But you snark sharks are so worse.
• Did you hear Amy Winehouse was a trainwreck? You’re so uncouth! She’s a genius!
• Still using PC or Mac desktops? Sigh. Loser.

And of course, The Wire, debated ad nauseum, on a tete-a-tete beginning as a lively read and healthy discourse for fans who crave reaction to each and every episode and moment. However, in step with Slate’s consistent attempts to dramatically cast aside the shackles, trends, and zeitgest of all conventional wisdom, it’s turned into petty, bitter sniping about the show. Aaron Barnhart and Tim Goodman are critics of The Wire — these two ninnies from Slate appear increasingly aghast that neither was consulted for each plotline strand and character reaction. And well they should have been, they understand The Wire on so many more levels than us.

Read more