My Crumbling Marriage With the St. Louis Rams

For the last twenty years, I have been married to the St. Louis Rams. The Rams have been my heart and soul. To borrow a phrase I’ve used myself many times, possibly in something many of you have read before: The Cardinals are their team and the Rams are my team. In this marriage, I’ve had to put up with my share of annoyances—the first three Rams seasons of my adulthood garnering a combined record of 6 wins and 42 losses was not pleasant, for an obvious example. But they were still my team. A good marriage doesn’t end because one of its members doesn’t age gracefully because the other member shouldn’t care. That’s not what it’s about. Marriage is about undying loyalty; it’s about being there for somebody when things are rough for them and it’s about them being there for you when you need somebody by your side.

And the sad reality is that my marriage with the St. Louis Rams is crumbling.

That is not to say that the marriage is over, but it’s getting there. And now, I must come to terms with what this marriage is and what it will be going forward. This isn’t about what it was in the past—I will always love Super Bowl XXXIV and will try to at least be civil enough with the Rams to retain some kind of joint custody for the sake of Vince.

The truth of the matter is all that I can ask of the Rams is loyalty. I was amped from the get-go before 2010, coming off the single worst three year stretch in NFL history, because I was enamored enough with the very idea of my relationship with the Rams that I was willing to accept something that others won’t accept. And the Rams gave up on that. And you know what? They don’t deserve me. I’m better than that.

And now that the Rams are openly cavorting with somebody else, I need to do one of three things. The first thing is something that I will tell you right off the bat will not be happening—ignoring it. Plenty of people have ignored adultery in their marriages or, worse, have rationalized that it’s their fault. And you know what? It’s not my fault. The Rams are cheating on me because they think they can do better. They’re wrong, but what do I know about marriage? Less than the Rams owner, whose marriage is the greatest business move he ever made, that’s for sure.

The second thing I can do is leave the marriage. It’s unhappy; my partner seems unwilling to change; this makes sense. In a lot of ways, I wish I had the strength to do it. But I don’t. I keep coming back to the happy memories and stupidly telling myself that things can be as good as they were years ago, even as the rational part of me knows that this is an impossibility. I won’t discount the possibility of divorce, but for better or worse, I’m not quite ready emotionally to go there yet.

The third thing I can do is accept that I am in an open marriage. I can accept that the Rams only care about me to the extent that I benefit their bottom line. I can accept that the only reason the Rams haven’t left me is because they don’t yet know for absolute certain that they can do better than me. And I can react by cheating right back on them. Now, I don’t want to cheat on them for revenge, but rather as a way to quell my own general lack of fulfillment. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to be told that I can’t.

I’m not investing another penny in the Rams until they show the loyalty they haven’t showed in me since the end of the Georgia Frontiere era. And while I fear the unchartered territory of NFL courtship, it may be the only realistic option for me to ever feel what I once felt (and sometimes, against my better judgment, still feel) with the Rams. And although my potential suitors aren’t perfect, they may indeed be a viable alternative to staying the course with the current state of heartache and misery.

Why I Hate Fredbird

I went to an elementary school that is across the street from a Veterans Administration hospital. And when I was in sixth grade, my class would often volunteer at the hospital.

One of the days we were volunteering, there was an assembly--I don't recall the exact reason why, but those at the hospital got a catered lunch and there were some patriotic bands that performed. It's essentially a smaller version of how I've always imaged a USO show goes. But one of the guests was Fredbird.

Before the show began, the Star Spangled Banner played. The 11 and 12 year olds volunteering stood and looked at the flag. The patients who could stand stood and looked at the flag while those confined to wheelchairs looked in hushed awe. The teachers and parents, including my mother, who were also at the hospital, stood and looked at the flag. The caterers and hospital employees stood and looked at the flag.

Fredbird, as seems to be his only basic move, jumped around like an imbecile. As the song played, he (I've heard that a majority of the people who portray Fredbird are female, but for simplicity's sake, I refer to Fredbird simply as "he") danced around and did that thing where he chewed on people's heads with his oversized peak, including veterans. 11 and 12 year old kids are among the dumbest people in the world and every single one of them, without having to be asked twice, knew to be quiet and respectful, and Fredbird did not.

Not long after his buffoonery began, my mother ran up to Fredbird and told him to knock it off. She told him the obvious--that he was being disrespectful to the anthem and that it was particularly insensitive to act in such a manner at a VETERANS HOSPITAL.

This took place in (estimating on month, not on year) April 2001. Certainly, after 9/11, people got more cautious. But Fredbird should have known better. And I recognize that perhaps a different actor may have acted more wisely but when it comes to it, being maniacal is Fredbird's only move. This isn't the Phoenix Suns Gorilla dunking on trampolines or something like that--all Fredbird can do is be obnoxious. I realized this quite clearly at twelve and have not backed down from my opinion since.

Three Things I Learned from Giving Up Meat for Lent

For the first time in my life, in 2015, I gave up something for Lent. Like, actually gave up something for Lent. Not like a facetious “I’m going to give up cocaine for Lent” kind of thing but an actual, conscious attempt to give up something that I was probably going to do during that period if I didn’t make a specific effort to not do it.

I gave up meat.

To be specific (and pretentious, if inadvertently), I adhered to a lacto-vegetarian diet. I did not eat fish, as is so common on Lent Fridays, nor did I eat eggs (I made an effort to avoid eating foods in which eggs were used as an ingredient, though admittedly this wasn’t a part I went super out of my way about), but I did consume dairy. Anyway, I’ve made some observations about it so, yeah, here they are.

1. Giving up meat is surprisingly easy to do: I guess before I go any further, I should explain why I gave up meat. As far as Lent goes, I’m not Catholic, nor even particularly religious, but I have plenty of family and friends who are, and I do respect the tradition. Even if you don’t believe a word of the Bible, I do think it’s a pretty solid humanist value to be moderate and to break free of your own vices. It’s something I’ve done a lot lately in my life.

As I’ve written about before, I reached a peak weight in late 2013 of what I approximate to be somewhere in the range of 260 to 270 pounds. As of Saturday morning, at my now-weekly weigh-in, I weighed 157 pounds. I did this essentially through cold-turkey dieting—I ate a huge amount of food on a Sunday, felt bad thinking about it throughout the day on Monday, stopped off at Schnucks for a bunch of Slim Fast and Lean Cuisine meals on the way home from work, and didn’t eat fast food for nearly six months, haven’t had a non-diet soda since, etc. After I got my weight under control, in September 2014, I recognized that I had become addicted to caffeine. Not “I like caffeinated drinks”, as I’d previously rationalized it, but that I needed it to function. I had a Diet Mountain Dew on a Thursday, suffered through a long weekend of headaches and rough sleep, didn’t have a drop of caffeine for a month, and have reached what I consider a respectable point of moderation (it’s currently been 22 days since I had caffeine and when I do have caffeine again, I’ll be sure to not have it the next day—simple things like that to avoid a relapse).

Anyway, I thought meat was going to be like my psychological addiction to junk food or my physical addiction to caffeine. Not that I’m particularly carnivorous by nature, but I’ve never been one to necessarily avoid meat. I even tried to wean myself off meat a little bit before Lent started, going a few days at a time without eating it. But I figured a week or so into it, I’d really be craving meat. But…nope. Not really.

I had more vegetables than I normally did but I also ate a bunch of other foods, too. The notion that you need meat for protein in the 21^st century is completely insane, and the notion that you need meat in order to eat enjoyable food is even crazier. I still ate fast food—somewhat less, but when the weather got nice, I enjoyed walking the mile-plus to Taco Bell for bean burritos or to Subway for a Veggie Delite sandwich. I enjoyed taking advantage of the Blues scoring three goals and winning and thus allowing for half-priced Papa John’s, and thus allowing me to spend four bucks on a small cheese pizza. I also drank as much beer as I damn well felt like. Throughout the process, in contrast to the majority of the preceding fifteen months, I wasn’t losing substantial amounts of weight. I ate a pretty fair amount. It wasn’t the healthiest vegetarian diet, sure, but it’s not like I was going to be super-healthy around the construct of omnivorism, either.

There was occasional “event food” that I missed. I went to a couple family gatherings with ample appetizers I could not eat. But really, that was about it. As a decidedly not picky eater, any meat I briefly desired was quite easy to replace in my diet.

2. People care if you eat meat and I’m not sure why: I told as few people as possible that I was giving up meat for Lent. This was largely because my least favorite part of vegetarianism is the smugness associated with it. Like I said, it’s not difficult to do. But it was also because people resent vegetarianism. Like, not resent people who brag about being vegetarians—these people are objectively annoying. People resent people for their diet.

I’ve read comparisons of the social norm of eating meat to the social norm of being religious and, really, how crazy is that? You shouldn’t discriminate against somebody for being nonreligious but I guess I get it—religious beliefs often form one’s worldview and sense of ethics, so a person fears somebody does not adhere to their sense of right and wrong because of their religion. But how shallow is a person who considers their eating meat to be a fundamental part of who they are? How is it not just a pretty minor attribute? To quote humorless vegetarians The Smiths, “What difference does it make?”

My mom was extremely worried about my brief flirtation with vegetarianism. Mind you, my mom was not worried when I was, as is categorized by the World Health Organization, “severely obese”, at least not vocally. I got more than a few blank stares if somebody heard about my diet. The idea of being “other” scared people, even though there are many, many, many people I saw multiple times during Lent that noticed nothing different about me because they didn’t know I wasn’t eating meat because, again, it doesn’t really matter.

3. I guess I’ll eat meat again…if I feel like it: I think the ethical arguments against eating meat are strong. But I don’t necessarily think they are irrefutable. Let’s put it this way: I find zoos far less ethical than eating meat. I place more of a premium on treating animals in an ethical way than on keeping them alive, though I can understand if the nuts and bolts of this philosophy raises a few eyebrows.

Anyway, after the last forty days, I’m willing to at least consider placing more stock in the ethical dilemma of eating meat if for no other reason than it’s kind of easy to do. The modern world has made a wide variety of food so easy, so convenient, and so cheap that I’m willing to actually consider the world at large because, frankly, it doesn’t inconvenience me too much to do so, as horribly selfish as that may sound. In the meantime, I’m in no rush to eat meat. I’m not going to spend my afternoon downing beef jerky. I didn’t spend last night giddy with excitement that once midnight struck, I could hit up McDonald’s and just go to town on it. I’m not going to do it for the sake of doing it. If I decide I really want to cook a nice chicken breast to go with broccoli for dinner, I suppose I will. If I decide I want the whole wheat penne with meat-free pasta sauce that I ate even more than usual (which was often) since Ash Wednesday, I’ll do that too.

I can’t imagine any of you care what I’ll eat for dinner tonight, but then again, I’m often amazed what people bother to care about.

2015 MLB Predictions

Nothing too fancy here.

AL East

1. Orioles--They won 96 games with a suspended/ineffective Chris Davis and a hurt Matt Wieters and their only major loss is Nelson Cruz. Pecota has them finishing in last and this division is a crapshoot but I don't get why.

2. Blue Jays--They added Russell Martin and Josh Donaldson and for some reason the friggin White Sox got more attention for their offseason.

3. Red Sox--Their lineup is really good, even though Hanley Ramirez could be a mess in left field, but their third starter is still Joe Kelly and he isn't even healthy.

4. Rays--They weren't great last year and they no longer have David Price and Ben Zobrist, who were replaced with very little of note.

5. Yankees--They could be pretty good if everybody stays healthy, but everybody is old and they have no depth. Brian Cashman is so terrible at his job.

AL Central

1. Tigers--In a few years they're going to REALLY suck but they still have enough. Yeah, they lost Scherzer, but we all picked them to win the Central last year when they didn't have David Price.

2. Indians--Jonah Keri picked them to win the World Series but he also thinks Montreal is a good baseball city so take it with a grain of salt. Could be pretty good if Bourn and/or Swisher figure something out.

3. Royals--James Shields isn't THAT big of a loss. They're taking a step back but not that far back.

4. White Sox--They won 73 games and they added Jeff Samardzija and Adam LaRoche. They also added a superfluous closer for way too much money. People are picking them to win the division and I don't get it.

5. Twins--Buxton and Sano are probably a year away.

AL West

1. Angels--People really quickly soured on a 98 win team that didn't lose anything major. Their rotation is shaky but it was shaky last year too.

2. Athletics--Never doubt Billy Beane Devil Magic. Aside from Donaldson they have most of the core from before they loaded up on rentals last year (and were in first place) and added Zobrist and Brett Lawrie and they're good baseball players.

3. Mariners--They have Robinson Cano, Felix Hernandez, and Kyle Seager. Who is their fourth best player? They're a vogue division pick.

4. Rangers--I picked them to win the division last year because I'm stupid and could've rationalized them as a Wild Card threat before Darvish got hurt. But he did and so now they're resigned to merely be better than Houston.

5. Astros--Jeff Luhnow passed on Kris Bryant for Mark Appel.

NL East

1. Nationals--Anybody who doesn't pick the Nationals to win this division is a hipster attention whore.

2. Mets--Young pitcher injuries but, like, they have several good young pitchers.

3. Marlins--They have an exciting young core with Stanton, Yelich, Jose Fernandez, Henderson Alvarez, etc., but I do think they're a few pieces away from being a true playoff contender.

4. Braves--I don't think they're going to be the disaster a lot of people think they're going to be, but they may have the lowest upside in the majors. We know their players and we know what they are--they aren't a 100 loss team but they aren't good either.

5. Phillies--I think the 2008 Phillies could beat the 2015 Phillies in a game, and several players on the 2008 Phillies have been retired for years.

NL Central

1. Cardinals--Their worst position last year was right field and now they have Jason Heyward playing there. No reason they shouldn't be favored to repeat as division champs.

2. Pirates--Cervelli is worse than Martin but the young core is a year more seasoned and as a whole, they're probably about as good as the team that pre-2012 would've been a Wild Card last year.

3. Reds--Billy Hamilton will mature, Jay Bruce can't be that bad again, Todd Frazier and Devin Mesoraco appear to be bona fide studs, a healthy Joey Votto is healthy, Aroldis Chapman is probably the best reliever in the game, and people need to start acknowledging how good Johnny Cueto is. With that said, Jason Marquis is in their rotation.

4. Cubs--I feel like a lot of people are going to want me to defend why I picked a team that won 73 games last year and added Jon Lester and an average catcher to finish in fourth this year.

5. Brewers--They fell apart down the stretch last year and they traded away their ace.

NL West

1. Dodgers--They are relying entirely too much on Brandon McCarthy and Brett Anderson to stay healthy (relying on the former is fine, relying on the latter is insane) but you're just trying to be cute if you don't pick them to win the division.

2. Giants--I don't think a team that lost Pablo Sandoval and nothing else of consequence goes from an 88 win team to mediocre overnight, especially when their rotation looks straight up good if either Tim Lincecum or Matt Cain regain their old form (I would never bet on both to do so, but one seems plausible enough).

3. Padres--Wil Myers is playing center field for them. Their infield is abysmal. They have a couple good starters and then nothing much beyond that. They have the talent that I could see them finishing 2nd but I could also see them disappointing a whole bunch of people.

4. Rockies--Their lineup is actually quite good and interesting when healthy, even if their rotation isn't great. I could see a scenario where they finish ahead of the Padres but this requires them to all be healthy, which means depending on Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzalez to remain healthy, which is not generally a good bet to make.

5. Diamondbacks--Not that anybody is saying they are good but I think you should look at their roster and digest just how unimpressive it is. The four worst teams in the NL by a mile are the bottom two in the East and West.

Awards

AL MVP--Mike Trout. He's really good and I think his team is going to win its division so yeah.

NL MVP--Yasiel Puig. He keeps getting better and will combine the exciting narrative elements with being a really good baseball player.

AL Cy Young--David Price. In picking awards, I always pick a good player on a good team and of my division winners, he's quite clearly the best pitcher among them so yeah, okay, sounds good to me.

NL Cy Young--Clayton Kershaw. Well, he won MVP last year, so I guess technically I'm predicting regression.

AL ROY--Daniel Norris. He lives in a van down by the river and people like stories.

NL ROY--Kris Bryant. Have you heard about him.

Playoffs

AL Wild Cards: Athletics, Blue Jays

NL Wild Cards: Pirates, Giants

AL Champion: Angels

NL Champion: Nationals

World Series Champion: Nationals

Audio Johnapedia 44--Top NHL Players to Build Around

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SWQ-mpsBHQ&feature=youtu.be

Who You Should Root For in Today's Stupid Bowl

NOTE: For those of you who will not be watching Super Bowl XLIX, I just want to tell you how impressed I am. You are truly a hero and deserve to be congratulated endlessly for not watching this event, which will be unwatched by hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of non-Americans. You are, to quote former Seattle athlete Kevin Durant, “the real MVP.”

Super Bowl XLIX is stupid and I hate it and I want it to end already. But it’s the only Super Bowl we have, damn it, and as with pretty much every game ever, there is a correct team to root for. I can’t tell anybody which team that is (well, I probably will) but I can help you sort out which team to root for tonight. There are subtle differences between the Seattle Seahawks and New England Patriots and if one team’s victory will be less destructive to society, that team deserves your allegiance, if only for one night. So I will break down every component of the big game and which team is less awful in it.

Quarterback

The New England Patriots have Tom Brady, widely considered to be one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history. If the Patriots win tonight, Brady will have his fourth Super Bowl win as a quarterback, tying him with professional country music vocalist Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana, namesake for a video game in which I never learned how to pass and thus Jim Everett led my playoff team in rushing in a season. He has cultivated a famously clean-cut image, even after leaving his pregnant actress girlfriend so that he could start dating a supermodel that a strangely larger number of people consider unattractive (yeah, okay).

The Seattle Seahawks have Russell Wilson, who has a chance to win his second Super Bowl tonight, which is a tremendous benchmark in that every eligible quarterback to have won multiple Super Bowls is currently in the Pro Football Hall of Fame with the exception of the guy who was terrible. Like Brady early in his career, Wilson appears to be following the trajectory of coasting to a Super Bowl with the help of a great defense before emerging as a formidable talent himself. Russell Wilson has an even more immaculate public image than Brady, which is understandable given that his greatest “sin” appears to have been getting divorced and possibly stealing Joseph Fauria’s girlfriend, though this comes with the annoying consequence of Russell Wilson being unnecessarily praised for fulfilling such basic quarterback duties as watching game film and being a leader. Is this his fault? Mostly no, but we all suffer the whiny consequences.

ADVANTAGE: Seahawks. Eventually people are going to start claiming Russell Wilson is the best quarterback in the NFL, which is clearly insane, but in the hype machine if Brady ties Montana, and to a lesser extent Bradshaw, will never go away. As will the claims that Tom Brady, who has spent most of his career on a team with a capital-E Elite defense and also put up his biggest number throwing to Randy Moss, arguably the most talented wide receiver in NFL history, is now better than Peyton Manning, whose team with him once made the playoffs and then, while losing him with very little other roster attrition, went 2-14.

Running Back

The Seahawks have Marshawn Lynch, who famously is refusing to do interviews, much to the chagrin of old hot sports take providers nationwide. I bet he doesn’t even like Springsteen! Lynch has an exciting, decidedly old-school mix of power and speed and is an objectively exciting player to watch, though he is far from perfect himself—in 2008, he was involved in a hit-and-run accident and in 2012, he was found to be legally drunk after a traffic stop.

Meanwhile, the Patriots have LeGarrette Blount, who is shockingly the same age as Lynch but with far less extensive of a résumé. Perhaps his NFL career has been somewhat eschewed by his tendency to punch opponents after losing and get released after leaving games early and then immediately signing with the best team in the conference.

ADVANTAGE: Seahawks. Lynch’s infractions seem to be a matter of stupidity and Blount’s seem to be a matter of being a straight-up unlikable guy. Plus, Marshawn Lynch cajoling the media is always a good thing. I thought at first this was going to be like Richard Sherman last year, where there were twenty people defending Richard Sherman from his critics for every one person actually criticizing him, but a material portion of the media is serious about this. I guess they’re more inclined to defend newspaper reporters than sideline reporters, one of whom was the “target” of Sherman last year, because that’s where most columnists started.

The Rest of the Offense

The Patriots have Rob Gronkowski, a man who stands for fun and youthful exuberance and partying. I can see the argument for whether this is good or bad either way, but in the case of the dour, thoroughly anti-fun Patriots organization, I think it’s a positive, even though I can’t see Gronk without assuming he would probably break into my apartment and steal my beer. Aside from him, on either side, there’s not much to feel much passion about. His ex-teammate did kill a guy, but I guess at least the Patriots eventually cut him

ADVANTAGE: Patriots. They can’t really be  justly blamed if we have to hear five thousand times about what a great, natural possession receiver College Quarterback Julian Edelman is.

Defense

The Patriots have a mostly anonymous defense. You’re mostly looking at Rob Ninkovich, notable only because he has the most New England Patriots name possible (which is impressive because they have Rob Gronkowski and had Tedy Bruschi); Vince Wilfork, notable for being an exceptionally large player in the sport in which being fat is the least endearing relative to other sports; and Darrelle Revis, who isn’t as good as he used to be but because we’ve firmly placed “Revis Island” in our vernacular, we will pretend he is. Also, they don’t have Aqib Talib anymore, which is nice.

The Seahawks have a bunch of guys who have been popped for Adderall (though one of the more notable cases, Brandon Browner, is now on the Patriots), though the most famous by a mile is Richard Sherman. There isn’t a great cross-sport analogy for Sherman, though I guess one could reach and say he’s the equivalent of a decent starting pitcher who becomes a great closer, or a sixth man in basketball that doesn’t start and thus doesn’t face the best competition generally speaking. But word is Sherman may miss the Super Bowl (he won’t actually miss the Super Bowl) due to the impending birth of his child, and frankly, I’m not sure how Seattle can survive without a designated guy whose job will be to cover Brandon LaFell or something.

ADVANTAGE: Patriots. Again, close.

The Owners

Seahawks owner Paul Allen co-founded Microsoft. If not for Microsoft, the internet would still be a thing, but it would likely be much different and much worse than it is now. Patriots owner Bob Kraft is a close personal friend of Roger Goodell, a man who destroyed video evidence of the Patriots cheating to an extent we may never fully know because, without any video to consult, it’s all speculation. This one isn’t close.

ADVANTAGE: Seahawks.

The Coaches

Seattle has Pete Carroll, who became Seahawks coach after fleeing USC right as they were about to go on probation for allowing boosters to pay players. New England has Bill Belichick, a sourpuss who is arguably the best coach in NFL history, even giving consideration to his previously-alluded-to cheating. Both men are cheaters who have largely avoided consequences for their actions (Carroll by fleeing the scene of the crime; Belichick by having an owner who is unbelievably cozy with the insanely corrupt commissioner of the NFL), though Carroll probably deserves some credit for at least bothering to have a smile on his face. Also, amazing fun fact: Pete Carroll is older than Bill Belichick. Seriously.

ADVANTAGE: Seahawks. Also, the Patriots have Josh McDaniels, who when not roped in by Bill Belichick, contemptible but indisputably good at his job, drafted Tim Tebow in the first round and offensive coordinated the Rams to two wins. He was sandwiched between Pat Shurmur and Brian Schottenheimer as OC and was STILL the worst of the bunch. Screw him.

Fans

New England Patriots fans, and by proxy Boston fans, are the most insufferable in sports as a whole. In the 21^st century, Boston has an astonishing eight championships, including at least one in all of the major professional leagues. And yet they STILL complain. About how the Celtics are down. About the Yankees. About how you don’t “respect” the Patriots enough.

Seattle Seahawks fans are amazingly an even more self-celebratory bunch. What else can you call a group that has the number 12 retired by the franchise in their honor? And this is the same fan base that lost an NBA team within the last decade in no small part due to pedestrian fan support and which almost lost their NFL franchise in the late 1990s to Los Angeles. Amazingly, though, the Patriots had an even more pathetic near-relocation slightly earlier in the decade, when the team almost relocated to…St. Louis. Again, and I can’t stress this enough: Both of these teams, now acclaimed for having passionate fans that you can find EVERYWHERE, nearly skipped town. I’m old enough to remember a time when each of these franchises were mediocre and absolutely nobody thought much of their fans. Being “good” or “bad” fans is an artificial construct. Every “good” fan base is “good” because their team is generally successful with the exception of the Chicago Cubs, whose fan base is “good” because it’s mostly hipsters who don't know actual players. And yes, I’m very bitter about the Rams right now. I better stop.

ADVANTAGE: Patriots. At least when Patriots fans wear a #12 jersey, it’s commemorating a great player and not themselves.

This game is stupid and you shouldn’t watch it. But you will. And so will I. So in the meantime, root for whatever outcome will make fans the least happy in total. Personally, I want Seattle to win an ugly game in which Richard Sherman does not play but the Patriots passing offense remains totally ineffective. And for Roger Goodell to get upset about the poor quality of play and resign.

A Line-by-Line Breakdown of "All About That Bass"

While most attention to crowning seasonal pop music champions is focused upon declaring a "Song of the Summer", 2014 has produced an interesting battle for the pop hit which defined the Fall. 

In one corner, you have "Shake It Off" by pop veteran (who is 24 years old) Taylor Swift, a song which, for lack of a better phrase, is what it is: It's not a particularly profound song; it's built upon a few hooks and catchy, inane melodies; it's the very epitome of pop music. Some people like this song a lot but nobody is claiming it to be great art--it's a fun diversion.

In the other corner, you have "All About That Bass" by newcomer Meghan Trainor. The 20 year old has, in "All About That Bass", a huge pop hit with her very first single. But unlike Swift, who wrote a pop song, Trainor's song has been praised as something more. I fully expect the song to be nominated for a Grammy and it has a very good chance of winning it. Purported lyrical profundity is a good way to gain kudos.

Here, I am going to break down, line by line, the lyrics to "All About That Bass", since lyrical content is a major reason for its acclaim. I have little to say, really, about the musicality of the song--arguing about whether non-lyrical elements of music sound good seems a bit like arguing whether a person is attractive or not to me. Though don't worry--I have plenty of potshots to go around!

Because you know I'm all about that bass, bout that bass, no treble (Repeat a few times)

First of all, I'm amazed by how many people apparently think she's saying trouble. Are people not familiar with bass and treble? Am I dating myself by observing that as a child, I learned what bass and treble were through an actual, real life stereo? Anyway, I can sort of buy "bass" as an analogy for being larger since "bass" is a heavy sound. It's kind of weird but I THINK I GET IT. But treble? Like, I get that treble is the opposite of bass musically but can you imagine a body being referred to as "treble"? Does that mean it looks like a treble clef? Treble clefs are pretty damn curvy!

Yeah it's pretty clear, I ain't no size two, but I can shake it shake it, like I'm supposed to do

Here is a picture of Meghan Trainor.

Okay, she's probably not a size two. But she's not exactly big. If you knew a girl who looked like Meghan Trainor...wait, why am I being condescending here? You do know a girl who looks like Meghan Trainor. Several. She's a pretty girl who isn't super skinny. The implication that she has faced any kind of serious level of discrimination for her size is ludicrous. I don't tend to read too much into lyrics as a reflection on personal experiences--to steal a sentiment once used by Ice-T, I don't get mad that David Bowie isn't ACTUALLY an astronaut. But if we're going to make this song out to be Trainor's personal rally cry, it's probably worth questioning the validity of it.

And as for the fact that she can shake it shake it like she's supposed to...good for her. Just...cool. I question a little bit that you're supposed to do anything, or that you're under any obligation to do something in particular, but I'm just nitpicking here.

'Cause I got that boom boom that all the boys chase, and all the right junk in all the right places

I want you to remember this line for later. I have nothing to say about it just yet, but I will. OHHHHH, I will.

I see the magazine workin' that Photoshop. We know that shit ain't real. C'mon now, make it stop

In a weird way, this is the point where "All About That Bass" starts to remind me a little bit of "Royals" by Lorde, in the sense that both songs are perfect autumn "message songs". Coming off of the summer songs, which are almost uniformly decadent good time jams, people decide they want a song with some kind of lyrical depth, but in both of these cases, the lyrics reach for some low-hanging fruit. Lorde expressed the pretty safe social critique that having money isn't all that important and Trainor expresses here that the media portrays a disingenuous image of women. Like, they're both right, but who is arguing with them? Now, mind you, I liked "Royals" for reasons aside from the lyrical content (until you heard it five billion times and got sick of it, it was pretty hard to deny that the production was pretty great). I don't quite hear the same accolades for the production of "All About That Bass".

If you got beauty beauty, just raise em up, 'cause every inch of you is perfect from the bottom to the top

A lovely sentiment. I mean that. Perhaps somewhat trite, but that's okay. But let's revisit that line from before I told you to keep in mind. And now you have a mixed message. In this line, the message is that you're beautiful because of who you are. In the previous line, the message is that if you're not a "size two", you meet a special categorization of beauty because, well, boys like it. Honestly, I think Meghan Trainor was very well-meaning when she wrote the song and that she wanted to write a largely feminist anthem, but that she still felt the need to dip into cliches about empowered sexuality--I don't even mind songs about empowered sexuality, but a message of "It doesn't matter what anybody thinks" is quite different from a message of "Take advantage of what other people think."

Yeah, my mama she told me don't worry about your size

You have a very good mother.

She says boys like a little more booty to hold at night

I question my previous statement. Not that I endorse the conventional parenting wisdom that you should make young girls ashamed of their sexuality, but this seems somewhat extreme on the other end.

You know I won't be no stick figure silicone Barbie doll

Isn't the criticism of Barbie's physique generally less that she's a stick figure and more that she has an incredibly unrealistic bust size? Perhaps Barbie is the one who's all about that bass, Trainor.

So if that's what you're into then go ahead and move along

This line in and of itself is okay. If it weren't for a whole bunch of other lines saying the opposite, this line essentially saying "If you don't like the way I look, then fuck off" would be quite nice.

I'm bringing booty back

THANK GOD! I'm so sick of pop stars like Iggy Azalea and Nicki Minaj and Beyonce who forced "booty" (this sentence feels ridiculous on any level so I'm compromising by putting "booty" in quotes and adding this disclaimer) into a dark corner.

Go ahead and tell them skinny bitches that

I am strongly opposed to discrimination against people because of their size. I have dealt with weight issues almost my entire life and I remain paranoid that if I ever slip up and fall back into unhealthy habits that once had me dangerously overweight, I will quickly undo everything I have done to keep my health under control. I understand that for some people--hell, for most people--their weight is a factor that, while they technically do have some agency in the matter, it can quickly spiral, and that any spiral that occurs is not a reflection on them being any lesser of a person. If a person is overweight, it's usually due to some combination of genetics (which they can't control), diet and inactivity (both of which they can control but what the hell difference is it to you, an independent human being, what he or she does?). So in summation, screw you for discriminating against overweight people.

But it works both ways. And you can't call people "skinny bitches" and expect to be taken seriously if your point is that discrimination is bad. Overweight people can be cool and awesome and vibrant and whatnot but so can skinny people. So much for every inch of you being perfect from the bottom to the top--this rule only applies if you aren't deemed a "skinny bitch."

No I'm just playing, I know you think you're fat, but I'm here to tell you, every inch of you is perfect from the bottom to the top

As long as you think you're fat. If you're insecure because you don't think you are shapely enough (which isn't exactly an uncommon insecurity), you evidently aren't invited to the party.

In conclusion, this song is lyrically not for me. If you enjoy whitewashed pseudo-doo wop, that's up to you. But as for me, I'll go ahead and move along.