Superstar in your own private movie; I wanted just a minor part

Here's the thing.

I like to make games of just about anything. Fortunately, at work, there are a bunch of other guys who like to make games out of the same things. We have several games involving the radio. The oft-mentioned "Two-fer Tuesday" game used to be the only one, but now there's a new one. The way we play this game, though, is a sad indicator that we spend WAY too much time playing fantasy sports.

The way this game works is that we get to pick songs we think the station will play. The format of the station we listen to isn't important here, but let's just say it's a pretty specific format. Before we start working, three of us select ten songs that we think will be played in the course of the day. We have a slection order (a "draft order", if you will), and the selection order reverses order in even numbered "draft" rounds. Just like fantasy sports drafts. After the "draft" is over, all remaining songs become "free agents" and can be picked up. It's not that simple, though. There's a waiver wire priority, just like in fantasy sports. Once I pick up a "free agent" and drop a song to even my roster, I move to the back of the waiver queue.

Trading is permissible, only if the other player(s) approve. It's quite complex, and if anyone working that day doesn't play fantasy sports, they're really confused by these rules, which have not quite been fully developed.

If any player gets two of their songs played back-to-back, the other players have to give him $1 each. Three songs = $2 each, and so on. So far, nobody has made any money off of this, and as you might imagine, the scoring is pretty low.

In comparison to the "Two-fer Tuesday" game, where the scoring might go something like 7-5-4, the scoring of the "music carousel" is often 2-2-1.

However, the "Two-fer" game has an added dimention that has nothing to do with the radio. Bonus points can be had for being proficient at a carnival-style game of chance.

Don't ask me. I just work here.

Coming soon -- a post about "new car shower-offers" and commentary about TO.

we may be hidden by rags, but we've something they'll never have

So here's what I was thinking.

The whistle is a very underrated musical instrument. People forget that it's not just for referees and traffic cops. It's a brilliant musical instrument. Sure, it can only play one note, but still it's cool. And under-used.

There are many examples of songs in which the use of a whistle solo made it that much cooler. Right now, I'm thinking of three.

Guns N Roses -- Paradise City
Supertramp -- The Logical Song
Led Zeppelin -- Fool in the Rain

What are some others?

now playing:

Mogwai Young Team

pigs, they tend to wiggle when they walk

As promised, here is the very pavement-esque moment I had at work the other day.

One of the guys brought in a cd with a bunch of Michael McDonald on it. Some of the younger guys had no idea what it was they were hearing. Granted, some of his solo stuff was garbage, but for a white guy, he could really belt out some songs.

One guy, who really doesn't know anything about music unless it's on top 40 radio, or rap, commented about McDonald's voice. "Man, he's got a really high singing voice. I wonder how he talks.". In any other circumstance, this would be an obvious reference to the Pavement song "Stereo", but this kid doesn't know anything about Pavement, has never heard the song. It was completely unintentional. Nonetheless, I had no option but to reply "He speaks like an ordinary guy". Since the joke would have been wasted, I left out the "I know him, and he does" part.

See how uneventful my life is?

they listen to teeth to learn how to quit

Today, in Prague, the International Astronomical Union has booted Pluto out of the Planetary Union. At their 26th annual meeting, they declassified the planet, demoting it to the status of "dwarf planet", putting it in the same class with comets and asteroids.

NASA has not shelved its $700M mission to Pluto, saying that it is interested in Pluto whether it is called a "planet" or a "garden hose".

NASA said Thursday that Pluto's demotion would not affect its US$700 million New Horizons spacecraft mission, which earlier this year began a 9 1/2-year journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets.

''We will continue pursuing exploration of the most scientifically interesting objects in the solar system, regardless of how they are categorized,'' Paul Hertz, chief scientist for the science mission directorate, said in a statement.

Translation: "It's too late to turn back now"

They said that a "planet" must maintain its own gravitational force and have a reasonably "round" orbit around the sun. Pluto is being declassified because it has an orbit that crosses path with Neptune.

This. Changes. Everything.

As a kid, growing up, I was taught a mnemonic device for remembering the planetary order:
Mary's Violet Eyes Make John Stay Up Nights Praying
for
Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto

Now what?

I don't like the idea of having John Stay Up Nights without a purpose. We need a new mnemonic device.

Who else learned different devices to remember the planetary order? Will yours work without Pluto in the mix?

Pluto has long been the center of much controversy. Most people recognize that Pluto is Mickey Mouse's pet dog. At some times, though, Pluto was also known to be the property of the irascible Donald Duck. Still, at other times, Pluto was Goofy's pet. Although it makes very little sense for a mouse or a duck to have a pet dog, it's bordering on ludicrousness for a dog to have a pet dog. You tell me.

coming soon: a post on a very Pavement-esque moment at work the other day.

now playing:

Throwing Muses The Real Ramona

with the light from the tv running parallel to you

I don't watch a lot of tv these days. I'm actually considering getting rid of my cable. I could save some serious dough that way, but it would cause some serious trouble when hockey season starts. Football, I'll be able to watch without having cable. Not hockey, though.

Anyway, lately I've been watching a good bit of tv. It seems like these damned Volkswagen commercials are on all the damned time. Maybe it's just me, but I'm annoyed by them more than most other commercials.

After running a series of comedic "stereotyping is stupid" ads, they're running a series now about the four-star crash rating the Jetta has. You know the ones.

The message is that if you buy a Jetta, especially a Campanella White one, the following will happen

• You'll be surrounded by friends who are wonderfully witty, ethnically diverse, and very good looking.
  
• One day when you're driving with one of said friends, a driver of an American-made truck will either blindly pull out of his driveway or run a red light, slamming into your new white Jetta
  
• the car will be damaged slightly, and all passengers will be uninjured, leaving you to exclaim "Holy Shit!"

I've been thinking about those commercials and how they might also take a different approach. Sometimes the Jetta driver might be alone in the car. Sometimes he might be in an accident where he is at fault. Sometimes his friends might be ugly. And white.

I wouldn't suggest that they go to this particular extreme, but I have an acquaintance who was recently in a very bad single car accident in which he was driving a new Jetta. He was doing something very stupid in addition to being drunk. He lost control of his vehicle, slammed into a tree and ended up unconscious. It took rescue crews 2 hours, using the "jaws of life" to extract him from the car. The car was completely demolished, but somehow he escaped with "only" two broken arms, some broken ribs, a dislocated knee, and some facial lacerations.

I don't know whether it was the safety engineering or the "hand of Todd" (I suspect the former), but this guy has no business being alive right now. I hope (but doubt) that he has learned a lesson.

now playing:

Broken Social Scene Broken Social Scene

you get the ankles and i'll get the wrists

After reading Reid's post about revenue sharing and competitiveness in professional sports, I got to thinking about something that I was already thinking about. Reid mentioned that revenue sharing is good for the overall health of a professional sports league because it enables smaller market teams with shallower pockets to be able to field competitive teams. Although he doesn't specifically mention it, this only works in conjunction with a HARD salary cap, which prevents deep pocket teams from signing superstars at will. He linked to a New York Times article, which, in honesty, I didn't bother to click through.

The NFL, and now the NHL have hard salary caps, meaning that there is a maximum amount a team can spend on player salaries, and that the team may not, for any reason, exceed that cap. The respective League will nullify any player contract that puts the team over the cap. Where I'm a little cloudy, though, is how those things actually work. As of this moment, for example, the New Jersey Devils are (in theory) well above the $44M cap set for the 2006-07 season. They have until opening night to shed their salaries. It's presupposed that they'll trade one or more of their high-dollar players for "future considerations".

Each respective League has different ways of dealing with how multi-year contracts count towards the salary cap, and each League has a very dense tome for a Collective Bargaining Agreement, and fans of each sport will geekily proclaim "Yeah, I've read the CBA", but in actuality, nobody could possibly read and understand these 4- and 500 page documents.

Blah, blah, blah.

To my knowledge, Major League Baseball is uncapped, meaning that teams like the New York Yankees can spend and spend to their heart's content. This, to me, is far more important than the idea of revenue sharing. Sure, they'll be mad at the idea of having to send money to an escrow account that is shared by smaller market teams. I used to have this argument all the time with a former acquaintance. He would say that teams like the Pirates and (back then, when they still existed) the Expos should simply "make better business decisions" and they would be a more competitive team. I would say that it didn't matter what kinds of brilliant decisions they made and what kinds of player development they used if certain teams have unlimited financial resources to sign superstars (and are not held in check) while others don't.

The NBA, to my knowledge, uses a "soft" salary cap, meaning that teams are allowed to exceed the set upper limit under certain circumstances. I don't know what the cap is in that league, and I can't get a straight answer from their NBA CBA FAQ page (sorry for the alphabet soup), but I'm guessing that it's insanely high, to where few teams even sniff the upper limit.

Anyway, I didn't actually come here to write about Collective Bargaining Agreements and Salary Caps and legal mumbo-jumbo. I meant to touch on something else that Reid mentioned in his post.

He says that without revenue sharing, there's a likelihood of certain franchises simply becoming championship factories, while the others become less and less competitive and the fans become bored. There has always been the argument that the NFL and the NBA and Major League Baseball and the NHL have expanded too much, and the talent pool is stretched thin. I don't really buy that. That's not my point either.

My point is one of silly trivia. Prior to the 2005-06 season, the NHL was uncapped, and no revenue sharing was used, and the New York Rangers and Detroit Red Wings of the world had payrolls of $77M, while most other teams were spending around $20. With deep pockets, they could pack their rosters with superstars, then pack them even more at the March trade deadline with a deep playoff run in mind. Again. Not my point. My point is one of silly, useless trivia.

In the last 17 NHL seasons, dating back to 1989, 17 DIFFERENT teams have lost in the Stanley Cup Finals. A different team each of the last 17 seasons. No team has lost twice.

1989 Montréal Canadiens
1990 Boston Bruins
1991 Minnesota NorthStars¹
1992 Chicago Blackhawks
1993 Los Angeles Kings
1994 Vancouver Canucks
1995 Detroit Red Wings
1996 Florida Panthers
1997 Philadelphia Flyers
1998 Washington Capitals
1999 Buffalo Sabres
2000 Dallas Stars¹
2001 New Jersey Devils
2002 Carolina Hurricanes
2003 Anaheim Mighty Ducks
2004 Calgary Flames
2005 no Cup -- lockout
2006 Edmonton Oilers

Pretty cool, huh? Amazingly, during that 17 season span, 11 different teams have won the cup, and only the Penguins (1991, 1992) and Red Wings (1997, 1998) have won back-to-back in that span. In this time span, four additional teams have won, but not lost (Tampa in 2004; Colorado in 1996 and 2001; Pittsburgh in 1991 and 1992; New York Rangers in 1994) . The point is that in the past 17 seasons, 21 out of the League's 30 teams have made it all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals. You don't have to go that much further back in the books to see the Islanders and the Maple Leafs. Only a few teams have never been to the Finals, and for the most part, they're the new-new-new teams like Nashville, Columbus, and Atlanta, or the new-new (and/or relocated franchises) like San Jose and Phoenix. Not only does this demonstrate that even before the new CBA, hockey wasn't nearly as dynastic as people would have thought, but it shows some level of parity in the league. More importantly, it's a good bar trick, and sure to win you a bet or two. There's no way that anyone is still reading this ridiculous post, but if you are, go out drinking tonight, and challenge someone to a round of drinks. Nobody will ever believe you that there's been a streak of 17 consecutive DIFFERENT SCF losers, but you'll win some drinks by knowing this fact.

Too obscure? I know. How bout this one? Similar in nature, but more mainstream.
In the last 13 years, dating back to 1994, there have been 13 different losing Superbowl teams.

1994 Buffalo Bills
1995 San Diego Chargers
1996 Pittsburgh Steelers
1997 New England Patriots
1998 Green Bay Packers
1999 Altanta Falcons
2000 Tennessee Titans
2001 New York Giants
2002 St. Louis Rams
2003 Oakland Raiders
2004 Carolina Panthers
2005 Philadelphia Eagles
2006 Seattle Seahawks

In that 13 year span, there have been nine different winners, and there have been two who did it in back-to-back fashion. The Denver Broncos (1998, 1999) and the New England Patriots (2004, 2005).

I won't go to the trouble of enumerating them, but in the 18 year span going back to 1989 (for NHL comparison), the NBA has had 12 different teams lose in the finals. The streak of different losers is currently 4. In that time frame, there have only been six different winners. Two of those are also on the "loser" list. 16 different teams have reached the Final.

In baseball, dating back to 1989, 10 different teams have lost in the World Series, and 11 different teams have won. Three teams are on both lists, so there have been 18 different teams that have reached the Final.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Really, I just wanted an excuse to point out that bit about the streak of 17 different Stanley Cup Finals losers. It's freakish.

now playing:

The Boo Radleys Giant Steps

¹ People will surely scream out "Oh, but The Minnesota NorthStars and the Dallas Stars are the same franchise!". They'd be only partially correct. Technically, yes. However, there was a merger of two teams, a dissolution of said merger, a change in ownership, an organization re-structuring, and a geographic move that make it sort of strange to call them the "same" franchise. Either way, 17 different cities have watched their team lose the Cup in 17 consecutive seasons.

'coz I can't see further than my own nose at this moment

It's been a while...
I had this notion that I was going to participate in the 2006 Blogathon, which is a 24-hour blog fest going on this Saturday. Bloggers of all kinds from across the world (although presumably mostly in North America) will be writing till their fingers bleed and their eyes pop out. The rules are that you have to post something once every 30 minutes, and that writing stuff ahead of time and post-timing it is not permitted. Sleep if you want, but only for VERY short bursts of a few minutes. 24 hours. 48 posts. Why? It's a charity thing. You get people to sponsor you as you raise money for your selected charity. Pledges can be made on a per hour rate, or a flat donation.
You can learn all about it by clicking the link above, or the button on the sidebar.

I learned about the thing as the registration deadline was fast approaching. I was already scheduled to work that day, and I couldn't work anything out to free up my schedule. However, I've sponsored a blogger I've never met (or even read for that matter).

If you're interested in sponsoring someone, just click through the link and you'll find a button for a list of blogs or a list of affiliated charities.

Two of my daily read hockey blogs are participating.
--Alanah Downie, from the brilliant Vancouver Canucks Op-Ed will be blogging away while raising money for Canuck Place Children's Hospice

--Michael Fedor, who writes Confessions of a Hockey Fanatic may or may not be participating. If so, he's presumably supporting The Mario Lemieux Foundation.

Other people who are complete strangers to me, but who are supporting causes that are very close to me:
--"Dreama", who writes Random Again is raising money for The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

And finally, "Aurora Lamour", who writes The Beauty of Love, will be writing and raising money for The Lupus Foundation of America.

Please stop by some of these blogs on Saturday, starting at 9:00 am eastern time, all the way to 9:00 am on Sunday. Even if you don't give them financial support, give them moral support.

Stop by the main site and take a look around.

In a month or so, some of us may be doing a hockey blogathon with some modified rules. If we can get the particulars nailed down, I'll keep everyone posted.

now playing:

another season crashes to an end

As promised, here are the Top 11 things that make Canadian Football sucky. I had to do a lot of research on this, and there were some things that didn't make the list, but it actually was kind of difficult to come up with 11 things. It was even harder to put them in the proper order.

I'm open to suggestions on improving the list, but here's my take.

• 11. "Designated Imports". In the Canadian Football League, each team's roster must consist of 20 Canadians, 19 "imports" and 3 Quarterbacks. Why the quarterbacks have their own designation, I don't know. There are further requirements about the number of "imports" that have to be on the field at a given time. In substitution situations, whenever an "import" comes off the field, one must go on. I don't know.
  
• 10. The "C" and the 54 yard line". The Canadian Football field is longer and wider than the American counterpart. 110 yards long, to be exact. That's fine, except that Canada is one of those funky places that uses the metric system. It would seem more metrically perfect for their field to be 100 yards long, like ours, instead of 110. The center of the field is marked with a "C", for centre. Of course it seems weird to us for there to be such a thing as a 54 yard line, but my objection is that 55 being the center doesn't make sense from a metric standpoint.
  
• 9. Twelve men. Canadian Football allows 12 men on the field per team, whereas we allow 11. Their positions are a little different, accordingly. I don't like it. I think 11 men is a bit much, for the record.
  
• 8. Punting on third down. In Canadian Football, you are allowed three downs to progress 10 yards, compared to four downs here. Sure, there's a familiararity thing about why punting on third down is strange. However, that system has a much smaller margin for error. An unsuccessful play on first down, and your back's already against the wall.
  
• 7. Crowd noise. Canadian Football takes the home field advantage right out of the home field advantage. If a team cannot get a play off because of crowd noise, they can request a non-charged time out. They can do this up to three times per game, and the referee has the option to penalize the home team for excessive crowd noise. Bullshit.
  
• 6. The "Rouge". A team is awarded one point if they punt, kickoff, or miss a field goal, the ball ends up in the end zone, and the defending team can't advance out of the endzone. There's no "taking a knee" -- you have to try to bring it out. A missed field goal is a live ball, and must be returned. There are some really complicated issues surrounding the allowance of an "open field free kick" in this situation, but I'd rather not get into that. As a history lesson, the reason it's called a "rouge" is that in the early days, instead of adding one point to the kicking team's score, one point was deducted from the defending team's score. Sometimes, a previously scoreless team would take a one-point deduction, putting them "in the red" at -1.
  
• 5. League size. Currently there are 8 active teams in the Canadian Football League (plus one suspended team -- Ottawa Renegades). By all accounts, there hasn't really ever been more than nine teams. In the 1980's there was a brief experiment with expansion into the US, with the ultimate goal of 10 Canadian and 10 US teams, but that failed. I don't know. It just seems absurd to have a major professional sports league with just 8 teams. Winning the Grey Cup is quite a bit like winning the prize for "cutest left-handed 9-year old kid in the cul-de-sac". Not much competition.
  
• 4. Montréal Alouettes. One of the most storied franchises in the CFL is also one of the most laughed at. They were founded in 1946, and did just fine until things started to get shaken up in the eighties. After struggling financially, the team folded and was immediately replaced by the Montréal Concordes. They played for three seasons, but struggled with brand recognition. In 1986, they were re-named the "New Alouettes". That only lasted one season, and on the day the 1987 season started, the team folded. Seven years later, the CFL expanded into the United States. One of those teams, the Baltimore Stallions, eventually relocated to Montréal. In 1996, the Alouettes were re-born. This is the third different team to call themselves the Montréal Alouettes. And we thought that Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders thing was bad.
  
• 3. Baltimore Stallions. As stated in #4, the CFL had a pipe dream of a League with 10 Canadian teams and 10 US teams. They ran into some trouble with the US franchises, because our existing stadiums cannot be configured to accommodate the length of the Canadian field. Not only is the playing field longer by 10 yards, but the end zones are also longer by 10 yards apiece, meaning there's an extra 30 yards needed. Some teams had to be creative with the end zones to make it happen. Baltimore was far and away the most successful of the "CFL USA" teams. They were in the Grey Cup two seasons in a row, losing in 1994 and winning in 1995. The "American Experiment" ended a few years later, and Baltimore will always live in infamy as the American team to win the Canadian game.
  
• 2. Rough Riders / Roughriders. One word, or two. This is the same damn name. For a long time, the 8-team CFL had TWO teams named the Rough Riders. So amazingly unimaginative. A long time ago, my friend Neil suggested that the only reason there isn't a professional kickball league is that every team would want to be called the "Kickers". Tonight, it's the Phoenix Kickers against the Jacksonville Kickers. Plenty of good seats available! Anyway, the (and I have to keep emphasizing this) 8-team league had only six teams that were NOT named "rough riders". There was (and still is) the Saskatchewan Roughriders (one word), and the now defunct Ottawa Rough Riders (two words). On four occasions, the two teams met for the Grey Cup. Ottawa has won three of those matchups.
  
• 1. Drafting dead guys. Either the CFL has a really liberal policy on allowing players to be draft eligible, or the General Managers of certain Canadian clubs are morons. Two times in the history of the Canadian Football League, a deceased person was actually drafted. Not surprisingly, both gaffes were by teams I've already called out. In 1995, the Ottawa Rough Riders drafted defensive end Derrell Robertson, only to find out that he had died in a car crash five months previous. The next draft, the Montréal Alouettes were surprised to see defensive end James Eggink still available in the fifth round. They selected him, but found out a few hours later that he had lost his battle with cancer four months previous.

There are lots of other reasons, and I concede that some of these are nit-picky, but that's all I have for today.

now playing:

American Football American Football

playing tracks six and seven again and again

Holy crud! Two posts in one day! What's the world coming to?

Since my "inbox" and "outbox" are full, and since I've been threatening to do this for some time now, and since it gives me something to write about, I'd like to share some of my favorite ingoing/outgoing text messages from my phone. Many of them are from/to the same person. If you're reading (and I know you are), you know who you are.

Because it's been my life and blood for the past three nine months, many of these are related to hockey.

INCOMING:

• Scrabble is 4 losers
  
• New rule: Never ever NEVER EVER EVER put your pom pom in your ballcap so you look like a cartoon Billy Ray Cyrus
  
• My mom says chocolate chip cookies represent the mongrel race
  
• Congrats! See you soon, bitches!
  
• Oh. plenty o' beer
  
• That KFC "meal" looks like a poultry abortion
  
• Damn homey. Yr gonna look like John Walker Lindh. Go Canes!
  
• Don't be shy on the TX Pete
  
• Bad Russian goalie, this one
  
• Can read yr sign all the way over here
  
• god... You guys have to be so damn good...
  
• PS I like the new Dandy Warhols. Fuck PFM. Thx for the CD. See you Saturday.
  
• **GREAT** assist by Staalsy!
  
• JoVa looks stoned on the bench
  
• You exhaled??? Wait ... Me too
  
• I'd be too. "Outcapitalized" is the new word for "lost"
  
• I am not cake or a lesbian. Enjoy the game.
  
• Dang. Ain't no sandwiches during soccer.
  
• McCreary and Watson tonite. McGeough won't even be in the building.
  
• Have you taken your pants off yet?
  
• I BELIEVE!!!
  
• and what about that beard?

OUTGOING:

• Makin' out yet?
  
• Hedican is a BEAST!! Great PK
  
• Lavi looks like a genius with that change in goal
  
• I dunno. Still at work. FedEx usually arrives at 4. Are they sweet?
  
• McGeough sux
  
• Finnish?
  
• Good team against a bad goalie
  
• I heart you??
  
• Oilers are too cute with their passes
  
• WOW!! Great killing
  
• If they showed a running total, it would rock
  
• You see the pressers? MacT was a little bit snippy
  
• By the way, Oilers.com has WAY better lineup cards
  
• Chili good to go.

Now that I have a permanent record of these, I can delete all the messages. Sweet.

Coming very soon: a "top 11" list of reasons that Canadian football sucks.

now playing:

Camera Obscura Let's Get Out of This Country

i thought it was you that i had chased

Yeah. So one week later, I have the joy of telling you that I was indeed the happiest person you know on Monday of last week.

My Carolina Hurricanes defeated the Edmonton Oilers 3-1 in game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals, earning the first championship for the Whalers/Canes franchise, and pissing off "original 8" hardliners everywhere.

As soon as the game was over, and as soon as I watched the presentation of the (holy FUCK) Cup, and as soon as I made it throught the line for hat/t-shirt, I went to the parking lot, had champagne with my friends Bill and Beth, and I shaved my awful beard.

The beard was good to me, and it was apparently good to the team.

A quick primer for the non-hockey fans. Sometime in the 1980's, when the New York Islanders were good, they were the ones to start the tradition of the playoff beard. Everyone on the team grew a beard, and refused to shave until the whole thing was over. They won three Cups in a row, so it must have worked. The rest of the league took notice, and it slowly took off from there. Individual players started doing it, and by now, almost every player on every team decides to stop shaving during the playoffs.

There are a few rules. The shaving stops either on the last day of the regular season, or on the first day of the playoffs. That really isn't important. The important thing is that there is no shaving. Period. No trimming, no grooming. Nothing. They just let what happens happen. Some will say that it's okay to shave after losing any game, so as to build new mojo, but most people frown upon that.

The best example of a really kickass playoff beard is that of Lanny McDonald who was a phenomenal player with a 17-year NHL career. He ended his career with the Calgary Flames, winning the Cup there in 1989. His playoff beard (and his full-time moustache) is legendary.

Sometime in the mid-late '90s, fans started playing along with the playoff beard. Since I don't have a wife (or even a girlfriend), and I don't have a job that requires a clean shave, I thought I would grow one. I stopped shaving on April 17, the day before the final regular season game. As a season ticket holder, I had the rights to playoff tickets in my same seat, and I exercised that right. In game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the Buffalo Sabres, my beard earned me some world-wide attention. I carried a sign into the game that said "My Beard Believes". I was caught on OLN (in the US), CBC (in Canada), and one or both of these feeds was available all over the world. When I got home from that game, I had about a half dozen e-mails from places like Tucson, AZ; Toronto, ON; Vancouver, BC; and Stockholm, Sweden saying they'd seen me on TV. I've never met these people in real life, but they recognized me in a three second tv shot. That was pretty sweet.

Anyway, I had my moment of fame, and my Canes won. I had been getting negative reviews of the 63-day beard from women, and I knew full well that it looked terrible. However, I was devoted to my team, and it paid off.

After all that stuff with the game, I went to shave the beard. I had hoped that I would take it off slowly and document it in hilarious fashion like some of my hockey blogging acquaintances, but I was in a hurry to get it off.

I took some pictures, but couldn't quite make it as funny as some of those guys. Even if you don't like hockey, or beards, I encourage you to visit the links below. I'll share my beard-shaving post in its entirety, and strongly encourage you to click to the links:

If I get to do this thing 900 times in my life, I'll never be able to do it as brilliantly as did Sacamano, over at BofA. His beard-removal post and the accompanying photos will soon be the stuff of legends. Both for its elaborateness and its high level of comedy. If you didn't read his post when he de-bearded in early June, do so now. EDIT---Also, check out the great beard removal by Chris!, over at Covered in Oil, who removed his whiskers on Tuesday afternoon.

I didn't take nearly as many photos of the process, nor did I do it in any elaborate fashion whatsoever. I was in a hurry to get than damn thing off my face so women would stop telling me that they hate my beard. Now they can revert to telling me that they hate me. If, for some bizarre reason, you need to see enlargements of these photos, just click on them.

With the help of a $20 set of clippers (which worked magnificently, by the way), I was able to reduce the beard to mere stubble. Good enough for the drive home. With the help of my friends Bill and Beth, I got photographic evidence. In the first picture, I'm going after the stuff on the neck, and I've already gotten most of one side of my face. I didn't really have a plan (or a mirror) at that point. I thought about trying to match Sacamano's beard removal, going for different styles and designs along the way, but really I just wanted it off.

As you can see from the second picture, I decided to go for the ole' half-n-half. I think this will be a facial hair sensation that will take over the world. You saw it here first. Without a mirror, I had no idea how I was doing with the evenness of it, but I'm pretty pleased with how that stage of it came along.

Then, I came up with a style that's absolutely retarded. I wish, in retrospect, I had some shots of all this in profile, or some video clips of this, but I didn't plan it out very well, and like I say, I was on a freakin' mission. In the third photo, you can see that I've removed all of it except for the half-stache. Again, I have a hunch that this will be a fashion trend. Sure, laugh all you want. I have more stupid ideas where that one came from.

Finally, the end result. A (mostly) clean shaven face that I haven't seen or felt in 63 days. I'm very excited to no longer look like some terrorist or freak cult leader. Or Jake Plummer. The woman beside me in the picture is Bill's wife Beth. .

I'd like to thank my beard (RIP) for all the fun times we had together. I will always remember it.