Track Tales Tuesday: Nothing for Christmas

Believe it or not, it's Christmas again. Every year the holiday season and it's cultural overhaul seems to appear fast and disappear even faster. It's like New Found Glory says on their song Nothing for Christmas, "December comes in a flash then it's gone."

Perhaps the most controversial part of the culture of Christmas is the music. When's too early to start hearing it? What versions of the classic songs are the best? Hell, what are the classic songs? It seems right to start playing Christmas songs right after Thanksgiving, maybe even after Santa's sleigh slides by at the end of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Pressing play then would only give you about 30 days or so with the unique set of songs though. Of course, many people would say 30 days is too many with such an annoying playlist.

I'm not one of the people who finds Christmas music annoying, though I understand the objection. Something about the style is so inoffensive and indifferent. There is almost always a lack of passion in songs that purport to portray the heartbeat of the average American. It's one of the main reasons I prefer pop punk to plain pop. Predictably, I feel the same way during the holiday season.

Nothing for Christmas by New Found Glory is the lead track on Fearless Record's latest installment of their Punk Goes... compilation, Punk Goes Christmas, and captures everything I feel about the holiday and how it fits into life in general. New Found Glory is my favorite band for a reason. Their unabashed enjoyment of life and their genre is at the forefront of their music which carries the lyrical undertone of fighting for belonging in friendships and romantic entanglements. Their song on this compilation is no different. In the second verse they pinpoint the underlying yearning of the season:

I think back to when I was younger
when everyone's together and I want you more now than ever
to not think about our troubles

No matter where you're living, you're supposed to return "home for the holidays." It's a season built on the concept of togetherness. You're not really going home though. You're chasing the feelings you associated with home when growing up. If you live somewhere for 11 months and 26 days a year, that place is home, not where you go to eat a feast, unwrap some presents, and reconnect with loved ones. I'm not saying there is no value to Christmas visits. There is and I don't know what exactly that value  is for you because I don't know what feelings you associate with the place you grew up. I only know what feelings I associate and that's what New Found Glory gets.

This year is the first I won't be going back to Massachusetts for Christmas. For the first time in 30 years, I won't be spending the holiday with my parents. If you step back and think about it for a second, it should be pretty disconcerting to do something 29 years in a row and then stop on the 30th. While I don't remember a lot from being really young, I still remember most of those 29 years. They were a lot different than I know the next 29 are going to be.

And I think back through fall, and the summer
and how it changed everything.
Let's walk through snow in the winter
and forget about our troubles

Snow not withstanding because I live in Southern California these days, I've changed a lot over the summer and fall. My brother who's a year younger than me got married in August. It was basically a big family reunion which allowed me to step back and look at my place in it in a way I never have before. This Fall I've come to realize I've never felt that togetherness. I'm not saying that I've been a perpetual outsider in my family, just that I've felt that way. It's surely why New Found Glory's music resonates with me so strongly, as their chorus on this song does:

Christmas is coming, so don't buy me nothing.
I got what I wanted, I got what I needed.
And Christmas is coming, so don't buy me anything.
I got what I wanted, I got what I needed, it's you, it's you, it's you.

When I heard that hook for the first time I immediately thought of my girlfriend and how I asked her not to buy me anything for Christmas. In lieu of spending the holiday with our families, we're taking a trip to Las Vegas to spend time away from everyone else and with each other. I asked her not to buy anything because things aren't what I want or need right now. Her money would be better spent on herself. What I want, I need, is to be here with her focusing on enjoying myself and figuring out where to go next. That's what Christmas means to me this year. That's what New Found Glory gets.

For the first time in my adult life I'm starting to feel present, and that's the only present I need.

(Punk Goes Christmas features songs from All Time Low, one of the most underrated bands in the world, genre up-and-comers Man Overboard and Real Friends, and veterans Yellowcard. Most of the songs hit the perfect balance of pop punk and Christmas.)

The (s)Words of Antonio Smith and The Governor

(Note: This article contains spoilers for Seasons 3 and 4 of AMC's The Walking Dead.)

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you do. No amount of hard work or time investment can make you a success. Well, let me be a bit more precise. You can reach your goals and produce your desired results. Some people will just attempt to undermine, deride, and nullify you with one simple statement because they want what you have, are unable to earn it themselves, and are unable to accept that you have it.

In case you ever want to employ this tactic against the New England Patriots, the keyword to use is "spy." Houston Texans safety Antonio Smith provided a perfect example of how-to following his team's 34-31 loss to the Patriots on Sunday. "Either teams are spying on us or scouting on us," he said in a post-game interview. Why does he think that? It seems the Texans used tactics that they hadn't in their previous 11 games yet somehow the Patriots were still able to cope with them well enough to win. Smith summarized:

"I'm very suspicious. I just think it will be a big coincidence if that just happened by chance. I don't know for sure, but I just know it was something that we practiced this week."

In Smith's mind the Texan's new tactics were so powerful they could only be combated by two methods: cheating or chance. The reality of his team being 2-9, riddled with injuries, and starting an inexperienced quarterback against an 8-3 team starting a future hall of fame quarterback and coached by a future hall of famer known for his ability to out-scheme his opponents, an ability most recently put on display the previous week when his team came back to win from a 24-0 deficit doesn't matter to him. Smith believes he deserved to win and since he didn't, he's going to find a way to say the loss doesn't actually count.

In 2007 the Patriots were the center of a huge NFL scandal called Spygate. You may have heard of it. You may have also seen the South Park episode where Bill Belichick, their coach, was mocked as a cheater. Even though most people have little to no knowledge of the details of the Spygate incident, our cultural acceptance of the Patriots as cheaters because "they spied on other teams" makes it easy for anyone to undermine their accomplishments. Smith demonstrated just how easy when speaking to reporters. By merely saying "spying," he brought the legitimacy of the Patriots victory into question. In essence, he played a trump card so he didn't have to accept what actually happened.

The Walking Dead episode "Too Far Gone" saw the series most recent and ruthless villain Phillip Blake use the exact same strategy. The tyrannical Governor of Woodbury in the post-apocalyptic world, Blake saw his small town crumble and subjects escape when he encountered the show's protagonists and their community-in-a-prison. Six months later, he had seemingly come to terms with the defeat and possessed new subjects and a tank. The prison (and victory) would be his because it was the best place to survive...if he could only convince his followers that they had the right to take what belonged to other people.

In the zombie apocalypse of The Walking Dead, people are much looser with their morals. Killing becomes an everyday occurrence. Mainly it's zombies that have to be dealt with. Sometimes though other people are so dangerous that killing in self defense is socially acceptable to such an extent that Stand Your Ground laws seem mild. In spite of this moral leniency, the one rule most characters can agree upon is you do not kill people without good warrant. Thus it's easy to see how labeling someone as a "killer" could give you justification to kill them and take their stuff--a dangerous thought if someone has stuff you want or need...like a well-fortified place to live.

"The people in this prison, not all of them are bad, but most of them are thieves, murders," the Governor tells his new followers, "Now why should people like that have peace of mind when we're burying our own just about every day?" This argument convinces even the weakest-stomached member of his ground, a young woman who pretended she was ex-military when they first met. It's completely understandable why too. When other people are bad and you're good, why do they deserve to have better stuff, a better life, than you? The problem is, that specious argument is almost exclusively used by people who don't deserve what they're trying to take.

The young woman watched as the Governor revealed his true character--and that he hadn't gotten over the loss of Woodbury and the power he had there. Our protagonists in the prison offered to share their residence, suggesting they live in separate cell blocks until the two groups learned to co-exist. The Governor refused in horrific fashion sending the standoff into an unnecessary blood bath. The young woman crawled away from the battle saying, "We're not supposed to be doing this." When her girlfriend reinforced that they were, she replied, "He chopped a guy's head off with a sword." The Governor, unlike the protagonists and their peaceable offer, was too far gone. He didn't want the prison. He wanted to punish the people in it. They refused to live in line with the fantasies he tried to force on them whether by word or by sword.

Accepting defeat is often the most difficult process in life. It's also the most humbling. It allows you to honestly assess your mistakes and what went wrong. Denial, worse yet denial at the word of another person, only avoids the issue and prolongs suffering. When someone quickly dismisses another person, you have to ask yourself why it's so easy for him to do so. Why was it so easy for the Governor to call the protagonists in the prison killers? Why was it so easy for Smith to say the Patriots spied?

Smith probably thinks he's right about the Patriots and now so do many football fans looking to nullify the team's continued success. What they're avoiding, however, is the simple obvious fact that ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith yelled on First Take, "You don't have to cheat to beat the Texans." I'm not sorry to be the bearer of that bad news, and I'm not going to listen to someone looking for excuses to pretend otherwise. You shouldn't either.

People like that are too far gone.

Picking Up Flags, Putting Down Integrity

There's an ESPN explosion of coverage on the controversial call that ended the Patriots at Panthers game on Monday night. I'll summarize it this way. The Patriots were at the end of a last gasp effort to win the game, a common occurrence in the Tom Brady-Bill Belichick era. Down 24-20, time ran out as Brady threw a pass into the endzone intended for (on a path for) Rob Gronkowski. Gronkowski was running for the back of the endzone. He was also being bearhugged by Panthers linebacker Luke Kuechly. (The use of the word "bearhugged" is not an exaggeration.) Brady's pass was intercepted near the front of the endzone. The clock expired. Game over, right? Right...except for the flag that was induced by the Kuechly-Gronkowski bearhug and then picked up following an official's conference.

That non-called penalty is the focus of all the post-game banter. Was it actually a penalty as the ball would have been intercepted anyway as there was no way for Gronkowski to get to it? Does it matter if the ball would have been intercepted anyway because a bearhug is a bearhug and is illegal? What do coaches and officials that weren't involved in the game have to say about it? All of these questions are irrelevant and are an example of the minutia that permeates the content put out by the mainstream media. What happened, happened. There is no point in speculating if it should have happened differently and what would have happened afterwards if it did. Rather, the discussion should be about why what happened, happened and if that reason is right.

In other words, this "controversy" is an example of missing the forest for the trees. The focus is so intensely on one tree, the picked up flag, that all the other ones are being missed. Other ones such as:

1. Kuechly bearhugs Gronkowski
2. Panthers Tight End Greg Olsen holds Patriots Cornerback Devin McCourty and McCourty is called for holding

Both trees demonstrate the same issue--players doing what they know is against the rules in order to gain any advantage possible. In number one, Kuechly is trying to prevent a big and tremendous pass-catcher from moving how he naturally would to catch the ball. The rules are specifically written to prevent this type of action by defenders. In number two, Olsen is holding onto McCourty in a way that makes it seem like McCourty is holding him (I wish I had a better picture) in order to draw a holding penalty. That action is, in a word, dishonest. Players, coaches, and fans sidestep that dishonesty by saying you do whatever it takes to win. "Whatever it takes" includes intentionally flouting the rules in hopes of not getting caught, apparently.

Winning by breaking the rules is an oxymoron. The rules are what make the game what it is. They are the parameters you play within. You're talking about different footballs if you score by kicking a ball into a net or if you score by moving a ball into a specific zone. Even if those rules are the only ones you play with, they are still parameters. They are limitations on reality that tell you what a "score" means. The game then is about measuring who can score in that manner the best--who has the most skill at completing that goal. Any rules that are subsequently added are intended to make sure the process for determining who can score the best is fair and correct. You want to make sure you are measuring the right things.

We could argue all day about whether the rules in the NFL fulfill that purpose (and I agree, there are many that don't), but the rule book is agreed on prior to each season by owners, coaches, players, league officials, and/or representatives of each of these groups. By agreeing to play by the set of rules, a person is agreeing that process is proper for determining who is better at a certain skill. So what does it mean when a player openly flouts the rules to do "whatever it takes to win"? He doesn't care about the game. He only cares about winning. The only problem is there's no such thing as winning without rules. Everyone works towards achieving different values. Rules ensure that a group of people are working toward the same value. That is what winning a game is. "We both find this skill equally valuable. Whoever can do it bests deserves to be honored for it."

The "whatever it takes to win" mentality is certainly not limited to football. (I would argue it's a larger cultural issue.) However, in recent years I've seen it's prevalence grow in the game. The Panthers are the most recent franchise in a series of defensively oriented teams that have utilized this approach. (The most notable would be the Ravens.) Each of these teams has been known for their mentally tough and physically brutal play--at least, that's how they're characterized. I, on the other hand, find their play to be dishonest, dirty, and dangerous. This in-congruence is an important issue. When the "whatever it takes" approach is intentionally whitewashed in post-championship exhalations by exaggerating other supposed strengths these teams possess, it devalues the entire game, season, and league.

I know, I know, how dare a Patriots fan write about this issue and continue to support the franchise after "Spygate." Honestly, I'm tired of that argument. Accepting that the Patriots were using the "whatever it takes to win" approach with Spygate requires that you accept Belichick is a despicable human being who not only used that approach but then lied about using it afterward. The evidence just doesn't support that view of Belichick, even though many people do. That's fine, of course. It's up to them to decide what they believe, but it makes me wonder, are these people the same that advocate the "whatever it takes to win" approach (I mean, everyone does it, right?) and are just mad that Belichick does it (according to them) better than them or their team?

I know, I know, I also sound like a pussy right now. I should nut up and be a man. I'm just complaining because I'm not good enough, right? Wrong. People who believe they aren't good enough flout rules because they don't think they can win within them. Men come to agreements and stick to them because they believe the agreements are right and they are good enough to succeed within those agreements. Ultimately, respect for rules (that you've agreed to) is respect for yourself.

I don't care that the Panthers beat the Patriots on Monday night. I've witnessed much worse losses in my time as a Patriots fan. (18-1 for one,) I care that I'm supposed to sweep all of it under the rug by accepting that the Patriots didn't play nearly well enough to deserve to win even though it was an extremely close game the entire time; and if I don't except that, I'm a whiny crybaby who isn't smart, mature, or masculine.

The Panthers won. The refs fucked up. I accept those facts. I also trust that the NFL is run in a manner so that most games won't end this way; and if a lot of games do end this way, the NFL will do something to fix it as soon as possible. If I couldn't confidently say any of these things, I wouldn't be a football fan. It would be a waste of my time. I just wonder why so many people who can't say these things insist on remaining involved.

There's a lot of trees in the forest. Find another one to climb.