For Who? For What?: The Definition of "Indisputable" is Indisputable

This wrap-up of the weekend in both college and pro football is named after the classic post-game quote immortalized by all-time favorite whipping boy Ricky Watters.

The state of instant replay is a joke right now, and I think it comes down to semantics: Referees do not grasp what the word indisputable means. Seriously. I refs can broken down into two groups: the ones who think “indisputable” means “probably”, and one which thinks it means “Only if the Lord himself appears before you and says “Overturn it”.

In the last two weeks I’ve seen a play get overturned when the replay was dark, shadowy, grainy, and, to my eyes at least, very disputable, and another play stay as called despite a replay clearly showing the call was wrong. You just don’t know what you’ll get in any game – will it be a head ref incapable of convincing, or one who’ll take any excuse to overturn a call.

The added issue of the head coaches being consistently and maddeningly ill-prepared to make the right call about when to use their challenges, and the whole replay experience has become a bit of an eye-sore on the NFL landscape. When a call is clearly butchered a fan has so many things to worry about: "Will the coach challenge?", "Will a replay show conclusive evidence?", "Will the ref be reasonable?"

The more I think of it, a hybrid between the college and pro system might be the way to go. Take the best from the college system (Every play is eligible for booth review, coaches still get their own challenge if booth won’t review, an off-field official in the booth making the calls), and the best from pro system (two challenges, three if you get the first two right), and you have a workable system, where everybody has a chance to right a wrong, and on-field officials aren’t asked to do too much.

College Round-up:

--After another exciting weekend of college football, here’s my new Top 10:

1. Texas Tech (9-0)
2. Alabama (9-0)
3. Penn State (9-0)
4. Texas (8-1)
5. Oklahoma (8-1)
6. Florida (7-1)
7. USC (7-1)
8. Oklahoma State (8-1)
9. Utah (9-0)
10. Boise State (8-0)

Last week, I said Texas or Alabama would lose (and likely both), and it only took me one week to look prescient,. Of course, I also said this loss would allow Penn State to sneak by them and into the top two, so how come I still have them at #3? Well, for two reasons: 1) Texas Tech was too impressive this weekend to keep out of the top spot, and 2) I only said Penn State would make it into the top two by the end of the season, and I still believe that for the same reasons I did then (more on that below).

--Texas/Texas Tech was a game for the ages. The atmosphere was intense, the momentum switches were dramatic and only increased in frequency as the game went on, and the ending was one for the ages. Texas almost withstood one of the great tests a #1 team has ever had – playing the nation’s top passing combo, and a fired-up defense in a tough road venue – and, in doing so, almost overcame one of the great schedule tests a team has ever had – facing four Top 10 teams (Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State and Tech) all in a row.

Now, Tech is Big 12 team with a bull’s eye on their backs, and they’ve just begun to run their schedule’s Top 10 gauntlet – their next two games are against Oklahoma State and Oklahoma. If they get through all that, they can look forward to a date with Missouri in the Big 12 Championship Game. That kind of run of tough teams was the reason I thought Texas would end up with at least one loss, and as good as the Red Raiders looked Saturday, I have to say the same thing about them. Still, I’ll be rooting for Mike Leach’s darkhorses from Lubbock to keep the magic alive, if only so his success can remove the stigma pirate fetishists have long been saddled with.

--Next week’s big game: ‘Bama tries to stay at the top of the polls, by keeping their perfect record intact at LSU. It’s the first of three tough tests, the Tide will have to overcome to play for a championship under Coach SatanSaban.

NFL Round-up:

--In my initial NFL wrap-up column, I touted the Dolphins and especially the Falcons as two young teams on the rise, with impressive rookie coaches, who just might continue to confound preseason expectations. Four weeks later and they still look good.

The Falcons, behind former Jags defensive coordinator Mike Smith, are 5-3 and are a serious threat to win the NFC South, depending on how they play the Panthers and Bucs later in the season. Meanwhile, the ‘Phins are 4-4 behind Parcells chosen one, Tony Sparano, and though they likely won’t make the playoffs (they are last in their division), they seem to be well on the path to competing in the near future.

--Is Dallas dead? They sure look it. Though they still have a winning record at 5-4, they are in last place in their division, are without several key players, and now have a QB controversy on top of everything. With Tony Romo still out, the offense struggling, and both Brad Johnson and Brooks Bollinger playing give-away with the football, the team appears rudderless. In that division, they can’t afford to sink any further, but there’s no help on the horizon – at least for a couple of weeks until Romo gets back. By then it may be too late.

Weekend Link Dump

--You've got to love any story that's title involves either "Hooter's" and "found drunk", but when it has both, that's a very special thing.

--Some of these are pretty crazy: "15 images you won't believe aren't photoshopped" from Cracked.com.

--If you're a dude, and you're bored at work, this could be very useful.

--Clint Eastwood hasn't been in movie in four years, and now that he's back, he's directing himself in what looks like another Dirty Harry movie. Only now he's retired. And racist. Only he's not actually playing Dirty Harry, he's playing a Korean war vet. And while it looks like the title should be "Angry Old Man", it's actually called 'Gran Torino'. Here's the trailer:



In other comback news, the "Wassup" guys from the Budweiser commercials are back, though it looks only temporary:



--I love FAILblog. The pic at the top is an example of the genius from over there, as is this:

Theoretical Gambling: Week 9

It's Friday, and you know what that means -- time for imaginary gambling! A quick refresher on the rules: The entire "pot" (which started at $5,000 in Week 5) must be wagered, with every game having at least $100, and no more than $1,000, wagered on it. For previous installments, check out the link on the right hand side of the page, or simply click here.

Week 8 record: 11-3
Season Record: 36-19 (65%)
Week 8 vs. Spread: 6-6-2
Season vs. Spread: 26-27-2
Week 8 Money won/lost: -$1,000
Season total (gain/loss): $4,200 (-$800)

Okay, I suck. For two straight weeks I’ve stunk it up. Although, to be fair, last week I went 11-3 picking straight up, and pushed on two of those wins, where just one more point would’ve made me a winner in terms of “money” -- both for the week and the year. Still, you know what they say: “Excuses are like assholes, they’re full of shit.” Or something like that.

Because of the rankness of my picks against the spread recently, I’m doing something a little different this week -– maxing out on the games I feel good about, and going with the minimum on the others. I’m also keeping it short and sweet this week, so let’s get to it:

Texans (+4.5) over VIKINGS

The Vikes win, but don’t have the fire-power to blow anyone out (Caveat: Unless AD goes OFF).

PREDICTED SCORE: Vikes 24, Texans 20
“MONEY” WAGERED: $100

Jags (-7.5) over BENGALS

The Jags blow right now. The Bengals blow now and forever.

PREDICTION: Jags 27, Bengals 17
WAGER: $100

Bucs (-8.5) over CHIEFS

The Chiefs were feisty last week, but at some point the whole No-LJ-and-3rd-string-QB thing has to catch up to them.

PREDICTION: Bucs 31, Chiefs 16
WAGER: $100

Ravens (+1.5) over BROWNS

The Ravens are looking solid, and Joe Flacco is a big reason. He’s a much better all-around athlete than I thought.

PREDICTION: Ravens 21, Browns 17
WAGER: $100

BILLS (-6) over Jets

The Jets suck. Favre might be hurt. And the Bills are at home. I say they cover…just barely.

PREDICTION: Bills 27, Jets 20
WAGER: $100

Cards (-2.5) over RAMS

The Cards are playing good ball right now. Surprisingly, so are the Rams. Only the cards can keep it up.

PREDICTION: Cards 31, Rams 24
WAGER: $1,000

Lions (+13) over BEARS

The Lions have been a little feisty of late. I say they keep this one close.

PREDICTION: Bears 30, Lions 20
WAGER: $100

Packers (+4.5) over TITANS

This is where I go out on a limb. The Titans can’t win ‘em all. I think they lose this one. At home. I know, I’m a crazy person. No one can possibly predict what I might do next.

PREDICTION: Packers 24, Titans 23
WAGER: $100

Dolphins (+3.5) over BRONCOS

The ‘Phins can run, the Broncos can’t stop the run. Sometimes, it’s just that simple. (I hope.)

PREDICTION: ‘Phins 28, Broncos 24
WAGER: $100

Falcons (-2.5) over RAIDERS

I love the Falcons. I know I’ve mentioned that before, but I’m going to keep saying it, so it’ll be easier to link back it to later when they’re a playoff team in a year or so.

PREDICTION: Falcons 20, Raiders 17
WAGER: $1,000

GIANTS (-9) over Cowboys

Brad Johnson sucks. The Giants might be the best team in the NFL. Remember what I said about it being east sometimes?

PREDICTION: Giants 30, Cowboys 20
WAGER: $100

Eagles (-6.5) over SEAHAWKS

The Eagles look to be rounding into shape. The ‘Hawks shouldn’t be able to keep up, even at home.

PREDICTION: Eagles 31, ‘Hawks 17
WAGER: $1,000

Patriots (+6) over COLTS

The shine is off this usually great matchup, but I think they’re closely matched talent-wise.

PREDICTION: Colts 27, Pats 24
WAGER: $100

Steelers (+2) over REDSKINS

17 times the Redskins have played a game the week before a Presidential election. 17 times whether the Redskins won or lost, the incumbent party did the same.

PREDICTION: Steelers 24, Skins 21
WAGER: $200

Obama (-6) over McCAIN

See above. 17 for 17 -- that's serious history. I wonder if Obama will be wearing a Big Ben jersey and cheering for the Steelers on Monday night.

PREDICTION: Obama 336, McCain 202
WAGER: The future of the world

To see which announcers will be calling your team’s game, or to get an early look at what game will be airing in your area of the country check out this site.

Random Rant: Zen & The Art Of Football Viewing

This is where I rant. About random stuff. You might've guessed that from the title.

The gift of modern technology has blessed football fans in many ways over the years, from the original TV broadcasts which brought the games into homes in a way radio never could, to instant replay, and right on down the line. The ridiculous creature comforts of today -– tiny, omnipresent on-screen scoreboard boxes, first down lines, even streaming fantasy stats -– make it easy to forget what is arguably the greatest leap of all time -- the advent of NFL Sunday Ticket in 1994.

Before that time, if you lived out of the area where your favorite team played (as I have since 1989), you had three choices if you wanted to see them play: 1) Pray they were lucky/good enough to be in either a nationally televised game or that they game happened to be shown in your area, 2) Go to a sports bar with a satellite dish to watch the game, or 3) Be disappointed.

I was actually lucky, because during the time I was in Boston at college and in Boulder after graduation, the Niners were such a good/popular team they were often on anyway. In fact, you knew going into each year they were good for three Monday night games, two Sunday night games, and plenty of late afternoon national games. It helped they played the late games, where’s there less competition, and also that NBC/CBS (whichever was covering the AFC) always used a NIner game -– of which they had two per year -– to jack up ratings by making it a national game. In short, I was spoiled.

Most other fans who lived out of town had to suffer the indignity of calling 1-800 numbers or staring at the Headline Sports ticker for score updates. So when it arrived, Sunday Ticket might as well have been the Holy Grail to football fans. Suddenly, it didn’t matter what game the stupid network chose to put on in your area. It didn’t matter if they played some crappy local matchup over a classic game going on at the same time (I dealt with this a lot growing up -– the Raiders were always on 1pm PDT even if their game sucked while Elway and Fouts were in a shootout at Mile High). Hell, it didn’t even matter if there several great games on at once -– you could watch them all.

But that’s the thing -– you can’t. There’s only so much you can swallow at once. Of course, we didn’t know that in those giddy early days. Like teens discovering the joys of a box of wine, we didn’t just get tipsy on our new delight, we gulped it down until our heads were splitting. Soon, it became clear there were limits (aren’t there always?) -- you have to know when to say when, or risk ruining a good thing. Thus, The Theory was born.

The core belief of The Theory is this: Two football games is the most you can watch and still have a clear idea what is going on in both at all times. The jump button is a big part of this (and the two-tuner receivers have added to that*), but the same is true at a sports bar – watching three games at once is the point when things become disjointed. You start to lose key bits of narrative – an injury update, a measurement, a key play here or there. But that’s not to say you can’t follow more than two games played at the same time. It takes a thoughtful, methodical approach, but I’m just the kind of lazy, underachieving loser who takes non-valuable time out my schedule to come up with approaches to these types of things.

See, while you can only truly follow two games at any one moment, games last much longer than a moment. They last over three hours, and each has its own unique rhythm and pace. Teams get out to big leads, allowing you to drop them from the rotation -– if the score tightens up later, they may re-join it. Some games move along more rapidly than others –- particularly quick games go to halftime early and may be dropped from the rotation temporarily, particularly slow games can be saved until later because the opportunity will still be available.

This brings up one of the key tenets of The Theory: Games which are closer to ending should be given rotation priority over games with more time left. Often this can be the overriding factor –- If three games are tied in 4th quarter, watch two with the least time left. This can change with the score, however. If one of those three hypothetical games was a one-point game (and therefore less like to go to OT), it should be given slight preference over a tie-game with about the same amount of time left.

The Theory is really like a constantly shifting organism –- Game A and B are in the rotation until Game B turns into a blowout and it is replaced with Game C. Soon after, the pace of Game A begins to slow down and it is replaced by Game D, which is speeding to a conclusion. By the time it’s done, Game A is a blowout, but Game B is tightening up, so that jumps in. And so on, and so on. It actually sounds like a lot of work written out like that. And maybe it is. But it’s a labor love.

New Stars:

While we're talking about football on TV, here are a couple of thoughts I've had this week on that subject:

--Sometime 'Inside the NFL' correspondent Jenn Brown -- on the show this week with a piece on the game in London last week -- is suddenly in the argument for "Who's the world's hottest female sportscaster. While I think she's certainly the kind of change we can believe in, this election season I'm still casting my vote for Erin Andrews. It comes down to the big issues: experience, and bigger tits.

--Speaking of sportscasters whose previous TV experience came outside of the sports world, there's a bright new star on the football color commentating landscape: Jesse Palmer, late of 'The Bachelor' and a former 3rd string QB in the NFL (including a brief stint with the Niners). Late last season, he did a few NFL games for FOX and displayed a lot of skill. This year, he's at ESPN, covering college football as both a studio analyst and color commentator on the Thursday night games with Chris Fowler. He's smart, funny, and makes his points without droning on or repeating himself unnecessarily.

----Osi Umenyura did a guest spot on 'Inside the NFL' this week, and while I know he has a whole lot of good football left in him, he already appears a better fit in the studio than former teammate and current NBC studio analyst Tiki Barber, who retired early just so he could announce. Umenyura was brutally honest, handled tough question deftly, showed uncommon insight, and a million dollar smile. You haven't seen the last of him on TV -- although you may have to wait 10+ years until you see him.


* Now you can switch away from a game and know that even if you “miss” something big while watching the other game, you’re still recording on the other tuner and can rewind the see what you’ve missed.

Movie Review: 'Changeling'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Clint Eastwood’s latest project, ‘Changeling’, is like a beautiful girl you want to love, but just can’t. At first, she seems perfect -– she dresses great, speaks intelligently, all your friends like her -– but upon closer inspection there’s just something missing. There’s no spark. While its acting, writing and direction are all exceedingly competent, ’Changeling’ fails to grab hold of the viewer (or at least it failed to grab this viewer).

Part of the problem stems from the true lift story of Christine Collins, a switchboard supervisor in depression-era LA. While her story is real, terrifying, and historic, it does not fit neatly into the classic three-act structure of a film. Rather than play with history and change the story to serve this structure, the filmmakers involved chose to stay true to the facts –- an admirable choice, but not probably not a dramatically sound one, as it leads to a very anticlimactic finish.

This is not necessarily a fatal flaw –- many films choose not to follow typical structure -– but the problem is exacerbated by the fact the choice doesn’t reveal itself until 90 minutes into the movie. Until then, the film plays it straight. Christine (played very well by Angelina Jolie) is introduced as a loving, hard-working single mother, devoted to her young son, Walter. Upon returning home from work one day, Walter is missing. First, the police refuse to offer any assistance, and when they do, it’s only to give her the wrong child and insist it’s hers. That is not, I repeat, not a spoiler. While the title -- not too mention the ads and trailers -- make it appear there’s some mystery about whether the boy is indeed her son, the film makes it clear from the start he is not. Instead, the actual story told by Eastwood is a straight-forward police corruption movie.

The facts of this true story are amazing and appalling -– Christine predicament and treatment is something from a nightmare – but plots involving corruption by the LAPD are a dime a dozen. The period era look and dress is fantastic, as is the cinematography, and it will likely earn Oscar nominations for several behind-the-camera-crew members, but better films (’LA Confidential’) and worse ones ('Black Dahlia') have already covered the same ground recently.

The reason for the corruption angle’s dominance over ’Changeling’ is the weakness of the missing child plotline. It is set up as the core of the film, but it doesn’t receive the same attention after the film’s midpoint. It’s the old bait and switch – Eastwood and screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski exchange the search for Walter for a protester-effects-change-in-the-system storyline. It’s not that it isn’t interesting, but one wonders why they wouldn’t advertise it as such.

Possibly because of this: While it's nice to know the real Christine Collins helped to clean up corruption in the LAPD, it's not like it really took. Really, Ms. Collins was only the first in a long line of people who've been wronged by the Los Angeles police and had that injustice brought to light -- sort of a retro Rodney King.

So, while the last hour of the film is eminently watchable -– supporting Jolie, there are solid performances by Jeffrey Donovan as antagonistic Capt. JJ Jones, and Michael Kelly as the “good cop” Det. Lester Ybarra -– it is tremendously anti-climactic. Christine and her partner in do-going, Reverend Gustav Briegleb (“the voice of god on the radio”), played by a always-solid John Malkovich, spend the final hour of the movie bringing about reform -- Briegleb is a bit like a retro Rev. Al Sharpton in his public rebukes of police brutality. But as this new focus stretched out leisurely I began to fear there wouldn't be a big emotional ending to pay off this 2 hour, 30 minute journey. There wasn’t.

It’s not that ’Changeling’ isn’t a good movie. It’s too well-crafted, too professional, to be viewed as a failure. It’s just not the kind of film I could fall in love with.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’Changeling’:

CONSIDER

Random Rant: Bud Selig, Midwestern Man of Mystery

I thought I had Bud Selig all figured out. Wishy-washy, ineffectual, sniveling, dishonest. Totally uninspiring. That just about sums it up.

Then Saturday came. In Philly before Game 4 of the World Series, with tons of rain on the horizon for Sunday and Monday, Selig did what all great commissioners do: He made a bold, long overdue decision, going against all rules and regulations in order to adhere to what's right. He announced that no World Series game would end in less than 9 innings, despite rules which specifically that they could if suspended with one team ahead after 5 innings -- rules which have been on the books for over 100 years.

That would be a dynamic, ballsy move by any commissioner, even Roger Goodell, the toughest sheriff outside of Arizona. But for weaselly little Allen "Bud" Selig (Who gets nicknamed "Bud", anyway?) it was a tour de force, a career-defining moment. The Washington Post's Thomas Boswell called it "The Bud Doctrine". I saw ol' Bud in a whole new light.

Then Monday came. Game 5 was potentially the final game of the season, the Phillies with a chance to wrap up their first title in 28 years in front of the home crows, with their dominating ace Cole Hamels on the mound. I understand why the game was started -- it wasn't raining, at least not very hard -- and I can't fins any fault with taking a shot. If you don't, and it doesn't rain the way it's supposed to and you look like an idiot.

Once the game got going, it looked like the right call, too. The Phillies put two runs on the board right off the bat, and Hamels looked to be his usual dominating self. The game was traveling by quickly and the rain was still falling at a manageable rate. Although it had increased, it appeared the game could be gotten in.

Then the 4th inning came. The rains came down harder, and the Rays closed within a run. This were not necessarily unrelated events. With two outs in the inning, Jason Werth misjudged Carlos Pena's deep fly ball to the wall. Although it hit near the top, it appeared it was reachable by Werth -- the first of several flyballs fielders would struggle mightily to find among the raindrops. Pena's double was his first hit of the series, and was immediately followed by Evan Longoria's first hit of the series, and RBI single.

The rains keep steadily increasing, and the field became waterlogged. It seemed an excellent time to stop. But Selig didn't call for it. He claims now he had weather reports which claimed the rain would only get worse -- this now seems true, as the game has been postponed for 48 hours -- and thought they could squeeze it in. That was a bad idea. Correction, a Bud idea.

The field became a joke, which may have led to the rays tying the game in the 6th -- an error by Jimmy Rollins allowed BJ Upton to reach. Upton stole 2nd base in a quagmire, and scored on a base hit ahead of a weak throw (and probably wet ball) by Pat Burrell. When the inning was over, and the game tied, the game was called. This seemed to be quite convenient -- had the Phils led, there would've been an outcry for the rules to be upheld and the game (and series) ceded to Philly. With a tie game, there is no other option than to play it out.

Needless to say, the City of Brother Love is none too pleased. Fans are angry. Hamels claimed after the game that he couldn't throw with his usual velocity due to the rain. Matt Stairs even said that "the big guy (presumably Selig, not God) got what he wanted". That, and a full day (at least) without baseball for the nation sports media to gnaw on this juicy bone of a story, makes for an ugly spectacle for baseball. Or, in other words, standard operating procedure under Selig.

I thought I had Bud Selig all figured out. Turns out, I was right.

Navel Gazing: LA Story

This is where I over-share about my life, spilling all my thoughts, ideas, fears, and aspirations onto the page for everyone to see. Like you even care.

When I was in college at Boston University, I took a job as the Sports Information Director at the Wentworth Institute of Technology. I was badly overmatched at the job, which required more time than a full-time student like myself could give. I left after a semester, but not before I came across something I would keep close to my heart for the next 17 years and counting.

It was tacked to a wall in the Athletic Department, a white piece of paper with some printing on it. I have no idea who placed it there -– it didn't belong among the sweaty men and locker room talk. This is what it read:

IF I HAD MY LIFE TO LIVE OVER

I'd dare to make more mistakes next time. I'd relax, I would limber up. I would be sillier than I have been this trip. I would take fewer things seriously. I would take more chances.I would climb more mountains and swim more rivers. I would eat more ice cream and less beans. I would perhaps have more actual troubles, but I'd have fewer imaginary ones.

You see, I'm one of those people who live sensibly and sanely hour after hour, day after day. Oh, I've had my moments, And if I had it to do over again, I'd have more of them. In fact, I'd try to have nothing else. Just moments, one after another, instead of living so many years ahead of each day.I've been one of those people who never goes anywhere without a thermometer, a hot water bottle, a raincoat and a parachute. If I had to do it again, I would travel lighter than I have.

If I had my life to live over, I would start barefoot earlier in the spring and stay that way later in the fall. I would go to more dances. I would ride more merry-go-rounds. I would pick more daisies.

Nadine Stair
Louisville, Kentucky
85 years old

I photocopied that sheet of paper, and have kept the increasingly tattered copy with me -– tacked to walls in my workplace, taped to a bookshelf next to my desk at home – and looked to it often for inspiration. I even used it to explain a number of life decisions -– the choice to leave multiple jobs, even as a reason to move to LA from Boulder, CO. But like any great quote, or philosophy, or advice, it eventually loses the rush of understanding that once accompanied it and sinks back into the background. Even epiphanies whither on the vine.

You get lulled into some kind of haze, in which you seem to be wearing blinders. You focus on just what’s in front of you, and you lose sight of where you are in the big picture. Like a castaway adrift in a lifeboat, the scenery still looks the same, but you’ve drifted so far off course, you can never get back. This is how marriages are ruined, how people become stuck in professions they hate, why mid-life crises happen.

This is exactly what was happening to me until recently. I was so concerned with making it as a screenwriter, I failed to notice this pursuit was making me miserable. It’s not the writing, per se. I still love to write –- the rush of inspiration, the challenge of development, the thrill of executing an idea –- it’s everything which had surrounded it that was making me miserable.

You see, to achieve my goal –- making a living wage as a screenwriter -– I had to cozy up to several unattractive propositions: living in LA*, employing agents and managers with whom I didn’t necessarily see eye-to-eye, working with any producer who’d pay (or even promise to), etc. Kowtowing to these ugly realities slowly ate away at my soul, and I only realized when it started to kill my joy for writing. In addition, the money from our pitch sale is running out, and I’ve been unable to find a good job (due in most part to the fact I haven’t had a “real” job in about 10 years). My wife and I want to start a family eventually, but since you need a stable income for something like that, we seemed to be drifting further and further from that goal.

That’s when I realized: I don’t even need to be in LA to write anymore. With all the progress made in communicating via the Internet -- e-mail, IM, teleconferencing, Scipe, even a screenwriting program which allows two people to work on the same document simultaneously –- I could be a screenwriter from anywhere. When I first came out, it was a necessity -– I didn’t know anyone in Hollywood, and more importantly, they didn’t know me. But I’ve made my connections in town, I rarely go to many meetings anymore (and could always do them by phone in a pinch), and I’ve established myself (at least a bit) by selling a pitch. My writing partner, Barry, will still live here, in case any face-to-face work must be done in town. So what’s really keeping me here?

That realization excited me, and when I found out an old friend in Boulder had a job waiting for me if I wanted it, that excitement grew. My decision (along with my wife, of course) to move back to Boulder felt incredibly freeing. So was firing our managers, who were making the development/writing process a living hell. Once I freed myself from these uncomfortable constraints, the inspiration returned. And the ticking clock -– knowing I’ll only be here to work with Barry in person until early next year -– lends needed urgency to our current script, a project we’re both passionate about (but have been putting off for too long in order to write more commercial material).

I know that by moving, I may close doors which held opportunities in show business, but sometimes in life you need to make a change, and sometimes that change includes a shuffling of priorities. I still hope to keep writing in Boulder and eventually “make it” as a screenwriter, but I’m not willing to put my life on hold any longer to achieve that goal. At this moment, my dreams of having a family, my mental health, and my (and my wife's) overall happiness all have to trump any career strategy.

Right now, it’s time to ride some merry-go-rounds and pick some daisies.

* When a friend recently asked me the reasons why I'd prefer living in Boulder to living in LA, this is what I came up with off the top of my head:
--No traffic
--No smog
--No road rage
--No high speed car chases
--No pretense/attitude/douchebags
--Easier to meet people, make friends
--No lines at movie theaters/restaurants/bars
--Much more fun/less exclusive night scene
--More parking (doesn't sound like a big deal until you live here)
--More beautiful scenery
--Better/older friends already out there (2 best friends from college)
--No police helicopters circling above our apartment all through the night every Fri/Sat
--No long commutes to work (both our commutes are 30+ min. even though we work in completely opposite directions), errands, and friends (I have friends I don't see just because they live too far away)
--Less taxes (here I had to pay to become a small business so I could work as a writer)
--Less psychos/crime: Just in the last few weeks, a SWAT team showed up at out apartment building, broke down our neighbors door & dragged him off in cuffs, and an arsonist began burning cars on our street in the middle of the night. Previously, I've had someone steal parts of my cars 3 times -- once stealing my muffler, once stealing my rearview mirror, and once just stealing everything in my glove box -- and my downstairs neighbor once woke up to a homeless man standing naked over her bed masturbating.
--Better economy: For the price we pay for our little apartment out here, we can have a 3 bedroom house on Sunshine Canyon (a beautiful spot) in Boulder, with a garage, a fireplace and a huge deck overlooking a forest and lake.
--Better place to raise a family (I have more than one married friend who refuses to have kids until they leave LA because they wouldn't want to raise one here)
--Did mention "no traffic" yet? Seriously, this can not be over-emphasized
--For Andrea: Boulder universally listed as one of US's top 10 cities for animal-friendliness, environmental-friendliness, and organic/vegetarian food options