1 note

Chess Boxing: Actually a Sport - A Treatise by Frank Cavanaugh

Sup broz,

I was on the nets today reading up on the latest news (espn.com, where else?) and I came across this article by Rick Reilly about chessboxing. Upon reading it, I immediately vomited, evacuated, and tore my right Eustachian tube doing so. Chess boxing? Dumb? Who the fuck do you think you are, “Rick Reilly,” if that is even your real name.

Rick complains that chess boxing combines two things that “couldn’t have less in common.” Well neither does an engineering degree and an econ degree, but everyone I know has both. It’s called being a RENAISSANCE MAN. You know, just the other day I was discussing this with my friend Jack Waffles (John to you plebeians) over martinis as our yacht was floating down the Seine. We were discussing how a great oracle had once exclaimed that “sports are just games.” Now Jack and I, being renaissance men, are philosopher-athletes, so we figured we were qualified to answer this great philosophical question.

After hours of gin-fueled debate, we came up with an answer: basketball is just a game. Golf is a game. Communist kickball is just a game. You know what makes a sport? Combining intelligence and violence. Chess and boxing. Other sports Jack and I have dabbled in since then: Debate-swordfighting. Times tables-dueling. The Grenade Toss. Real-life Battleship (with the French fleet, no it didn’t last very long.) Precision Carpet-Bombing.

Rick, don’t call chessboxing one of the dumbest sports in the world. It’s one of the ONLY sports in the world. In fact, Rick Reilly, I, Frank Cavanaugh, challenge YOU to a chessboxing duel. You name the time, place, etc. 

Don’t be a pussy, Rick. 

5 notes

Frattiness in a Lit Mag: Tin House takes on Beirut

Oh, Beer Pong. That undergraduate mainstay to which we devote our nights and our livers, that glorious contest of Solo cups and broken hearts, that germ-ridden exposition of marvel where boys become men, and girls become irrelevant. Why, we so often have asked, is this sport and this pastime so egregiously neglected by the writers of our nation’s literary magazines?

That dark age has recently ended. In its recently published “Games People Play” issue, Tin House features a warm reminiscence by staff writer Cheston Knapp of his golden years at William & Mary, when he and his friends fratted very hard. Its inclusion is a landmark in fratological discourse. Tin House may not be the stuffiest of lit mags, but not often are the phrases “elephant walks” and “ritual coitus with goats” included in a publication that mentions Georges Perec and the Oulipo movement in its introduction.

Oh. And the story happens to be pretty fucking well-written. If the blunt frattiness of his name didn’t give it away (like seriously how frat-tastic is the name CHESTON KNAPP) it’s pretty clear that this bro has the right pedigree for the subject matter. Amidst a vivid landscape of croakies and projectile vomiting, Knapp manages to relay with Beast- and Natty-soaked vivacity the joy of man-to-man combat on the Pong table.

But the highlight of the article, the moment where the fratmospheric pressure index hits its peak, is when Knapp introduces a substance knows as “frat sludge,” the “ameobic mess” created by the mounting beer and dirt and whothefuckknowswhatelse, that oozed from one end of the floor to the other as the faceoffs went on. (The Beirut table at the ## office also has its own biochemical activity it can attest to: a fungus that has, over the past 8 months, grown to cover a large spot beside the giant hashtags we painted on it.)

However we have some complaints. As wonderful as it is to read about keg stands in the space that would usually run some shit story about Pakistan, our friend Cheston neglected to include several points we consider essential in all discussion of this sport of champions. First, there is no mention of the ire that comes out of the heated “Beirut or Beer Pong” debate. The “correct” name has never been adequately decided upon.

Next, he neglects to inform the dear readers of his quaint little zine about the, um, variations on the game. There’s 21, which requires two 3-person teams and 21 cups a side, and forces each player to team up with someone on another team and shoot a communal ball. If your opponent makes it, you drink the cup and shoot. If he makes it, you shoot.

These same rules apply to Honeycomb, but with one alteration: the ENTIRE TABLE is covered in beer-filled cups, resulting in about 88 cups per side. It requires four people per team, and you get extremely wasted.

And there’s all the Beer Pong terminolgy that Cheston left out. There’s The Jamal, The Chi O, The Orphan, The Jump Shot, The Battleship Galatica, The Side Car, The One Cup, The Swat, The Naked Run, and so many more. The people need to know, Chester! The people need to know!  

You can read the story here. (Pshhhhhhh yeah RIGHT. Like Tin House would actually put its good stuff online. You can read some shitty stuff on the site, but “Beirut: A Frat-tastic Brewhaha” is nowhere to be found.) I would tell you to buy it in a bookstore or something, but you wouldn’t want to do that. This issue costs $16, and you would be much better off spending that money on two cases of Natty Light.

The moral of this story? Nate Silver doesn’t know his Bojangles.
Bojangles is famous for its chicken ‘n biscuits — a 1982 Talk story from The New Yorker, about the opening of the first Bo’s in the Big Apple, starts, “Chicken. Biscuits. Chicken ‘n Biscuits. Bojangles’ Famous Chicken ‘n Biscuits” — so we scraped the nutritional information for a Chicken Biscuit, ignorin’ all the fixin’s that make the meal so much more deliciously unhealthy.
Bojangles’ website doesn’t offer up its trans-fat information — to be fair, Cook Out, the other staple of The ## masthead’s late-night diet, doesn’t even have a website — so the Chicken Biscuit was at a disadvantage from the very beginning. Plus, we’re not factoring in the vat of Bojangles’ sweetest tea that makes you shake with caffeine before even taking a stab at the biscuit. (Another disclaimer: we’re not mathematics majors and we’re not even statistics majors. So this could be completely, utterly, embarrassingly wrong.)
That said, we took the handy-dandy formula and summed the Chicken Biscuit’s Silverian nutritional rating to be merely .534 — unhealthier than only Subway’s 12-inch oven-roasted chicken sandwich. 
That’s why you order two Chicken Biscuits, after all.

The moral of this story? Nate Silver doesn’t know his Bojangles.

Bojangles is famous for its chicken ‘n biscuits — a 1982 Talk story from The New Yorker, about the opening of the first Bo’s in the Big Apple, starts, “Chicken. Biscuits. Chicken ‘n Biscuits. Bojangles’ Famous Chicken ‘n Biscuits” — so we scraped the nutritional information for a Chicken Biscuit, ignorin’ all the fixin’s that make the meal so much more deliciously unhealthy.

Bojangles’ website doesn’t offer up its trans-fat information — to be fair, Cook Out, the other staple of The ## masthead’s late-night diet, doesn’t even have a website — so the Chicken Biscuit was at a disadvantage from the very beginning. Plus, we’re not factoring in the vat of Bojangles’ sweetest tea that makes you shake with caffeine before even taking a stab at the biscuit. (Another disclaimer: we’re not mathematics majors and we’re not even statistics majors. So this could be completely, utterly, embarrassingly wrong.)

That said, we took the handy-dandy formula and summed the Chicken Biscuit’s Silverian nutritional rating to be merely .534 — unhealthier than only Subway’s 12-inch oven-roasted chicken sandwich. 

That’s why you order two Chicken Biscuits, after all.

2 notes

On Abandoning Platitudes

I suppose it was back in ’03 when I had a gradual epiphany: abandoning platitude is the equivalent of intellectual self-pleasuring.

Now, I don’t mean this in the base carnal way that you’re thinking. Let me explain. It had been a wild night in Cairo, and I woke up to see the second girl leaving the bed. Unfortunately, the third was something dubbed a “lecherous cuddler,” or, in modern vernacular, a “clinger.” (There is some inherent value in letting a swimsuit model rest her head on your chest while you smoke a cigarette — steadily and subtly building a pile of ash on her pillow, of course — but after 10 minutes, it’s gone a bit too far.) I had lost my cell phone in an Anisette drinking race earlier that week, and worse, I had ripped all three of the room’s phones out last night for a daring Wafflecone, so I couldn’t even make a business call to get out of this jam. My mind raced. Would I get out in time for the Schooner Bar cocktail hour? Would she figure out I had been cut out of the will? Would she ask me about myself? Borderline panicked, I searched the room for some escape. I even considered using an old Sherpa trick to bring my heart rate down to fewer than five beats per minute. Still, there was a 5 percent chance that I would put myself into a coma. I continued searching.

In the corner by a busted chandelier, I spied one of my rabbit-eared Hemingway novels. The jumbled machinery of my brain began whirring with remarkable lucidity, and an unusually concise and transparent solution emerged: WWHD?

There is no need for contrived explanations, feigned attention or further gilding of the lily. This person is of no importance to me, and I have no interest in ever seeing her again. The subsequent conversation went something like this:

Model A: Mmm, Jack. Last night was great.
Me: Yes. I suppose it was. (Checking my watch.)
Model A: So, do you want to get some breakfast?
Me: Certainly. (Lights second cigarette.)
Model A: Should we get room service?
Me: You seem to be mistaken in your assumptions. Let me make something incredibly clear: I have about as much interest in you as an individual as I do in the curriculum of a state school. Your personality is even less important to me than whatever your name is. Honestly, this pack of cigarettes is more valuable than you. If you’ll excuse me, I must be headed to the club.
Model A: Ha! Stop it, Jack. You’re so silly.
Me: Unfortunately for you, I’m dead serious. And its Mr. Waffles to you. Only my friends call me Jack. (Exeunt Model A in tears.)
Model B: You’re a jerk, Jack!
Me: Same applies to you tramp. I’m off.

I was liberated — free! Such raw power I had felt only hunting with nothing but a knife at 3 a.m. in the South African bush. (You don’t know power till you’ve strangled a lion with your bare hands.) Throwing platitude, however, into a fiery maw of condescension and brutal honesty is a very, very close second.

So: do what you want today. Swig that bottle of whiskey. Punch the valet in the face. Piss on Democratic headquarters in DC. Flip off a cop. Smoke the entire pack. Dump a drum of oil in the ocean. Tell someone he’s an asshole. Stop pulling punches. Revel in the filthy truth of life. Men do what they must; everyone else is just watching them.

Spring Break! Woohoo!

(via)

Just a heads up: The ## team will be on spring break this upcoming week. We’re stocking the queue just in case the wireless on the cruise ship is flaky/we’re too ‘busy’ to blog.

1 note

A ‘Light Case’: Probably not What You Think It Is

(via)

By now we’re all familiar with blog time. We use it all the time to measure time. But sometimes we use another measure of time, one that’s more applicable to certain situations. I’m speaking of “the case,” which is measured by how long it takes a given “room” of “heady bros” to consume one case (24 beers in these parts).

For the purposes herein we may assume that a “room” is “quorum,” which is approximately 5 or 6 “heady bros.” Thus, after much empirical testing, one case is roughly 30 minutes.

Sure, this is useful. “We’ll be there in two cases.” “That was so four cases ago.” You get the idea. But we still don’t have any measure of distance in our new system. Until now!

A light case - the distance light travels in the time it takes a “room” of “heady bros” (i.e. “quorum”) to consume a case of beer (not to be confused with a case of light beer).

Some math, courtesy of Barton Labs:

Light travels 186,000 miles per second.

It takes 30 minutes for “quorum” to consume case. That’s 1800 seconds.

186,000 mi/sec * 1800 seconds = 330,000,000 miles = 1 ‘light case’

Therefore 1 light case is equivalent to 330,000,000 miles.

Happy Fraturday!

Can a video with multiple famous people really “go viral”? or: How I was reminded what the ’80s Presidents were like

Apparently if you write a pro-Obama short you can have your choice of brilliant SNL-alums. They probably just kept tweeting @RonHoward (not real) to get in on this monumental work of protest.

The video, directed by Howard, was posted 11 hours ago (about 3 am EST?) so that makes us about 55 blog days behind, but I’m sure the clip’s still got some legs. So sure, people will hail it as “viral,” but can we really credit the success of a video so stacked with politically-conscience celebs to digital word of mouth?

Obviously Funny or Die doesn’t advertise nearly as much as any television network, thus the 100,000+ views the clip already has is due mostly to blogs, Twitter and, for the old folks, email. But was there ever a question of whether this thing would blow up? Is that a requirement for a video to “go viral”? Can it have a political “message”?

(Hat tip theduty)

59 notes

choire:

mattchew03:

I am? Well, I should probably get on that…

Anyway, for reasons unclear to me—because I don’t think I’m that interesting or worthy of something like this—but appreciated regardless, Daniel D’Addario wrote a profile on me for The Awl.

So, if you care to, go forth and read it (but try to ignore the negative comments, even though I wasn’t able to do so).

I’m actually completely surprised by the tone of many of the comments. I cannot figure out these reactions. I guess, in part, as has been discussed TO DEATH this week, people really do find it easy (both personally and technologically) to make fun of people on the Internets!

Ahhh! Too much meta-enabling, not enough post-post-meaningful love. However I do find the irony of the blogger-coming-to-the-big-city as the story The Awl/D’Addario chose to write meaningfully. Is the future of blogging importing meaningful teens/20-somethings/college grads from “real America” to keep the NYC blogging scene “grounded”? OK sorry, I’ll stop.