A Natural High is Still a High

It may just be the heroin talking, but I feel like Brett Farve after 4 beers and a couple Vicodin.

The knees are feeling pretty good, and I've been putting in some bike work everytime I hit the gym, so hopefully, the stabilizers are working, too. So naturally, I'm about to ruin all of that by playing hoops again. Because I'm an idiot. Actually, I've got a tentative plan to get myself back onto the basketball court, and so far, part I is working out well. Basically, I just need to follow some fundamental rules, and I think that I'll be fine. The first one is that I need to cap it off at 2 games each session for the time being. Maybe in a couple months, I can bump it up to 3 and further, but for now, I need to keep it in place. Similarly, I'm going to make sure that I have a minimum of 2 days rest before anything strenuous.

Last week, I ran one (and only one) game. Couldn't cut, was out of breath, couldn't jump, but was shooting lights out. In a pick up game where I had 2 black holes running 1 and 2, I managed 3 points on 4 shots. A nice baseline 10 footer, a nice pullup from 15 where I went from the wing to the free throw line off the dribble, and another nice pullup from 19 going left off of a screen over lazy defenders. Not a ton of lift, but enough to get the shot in. Incidentally, the one shot I missed was from 4 feet, after I put on a beautiful headfake on a pogo stick defender. Left it short because I jumped about 8" off the ground. Oh well.

Earlier today, I ran one game. Actually, I finished off a game for a guy who got hurt, and then ran the game after that. Took one shot, a missed layup, but I played good, and felt great. Ran point, moved the ball, made nice passes, played real smart offense. Actually pushed a couple breaks, and felt good controlling the floor in the halfcourt. Moved okay on defense, was guarding someone who wasn't going to beat me off the dribble, but kept moving, so I got to move the legs a bit. Boxed OK, though I wasn't particularly aggressive in getting the ball. All in all, it's a first step. I need to get back to playing with some players who are a little better so that I can get back to doing more things, and not just shuffle the ball around. Rather, I want to be coming off of screens for catch and shoot, triggering more plays and motion. But for now, it feels good. I'm not worried about being too athletic right now. I'm not where I was 3 years ago, when I was healthy and playing regularly. But I think that my mental game is a little sharper, so we'll see if I can change that up.

But I miss the adrenaline rush when you take over a game for a stretch.

Sometimes, I wonder if I'm not an adrenaline junkie.

Here's the thing. Adrenaline can be a very dangerous chemical. You can get going, play through pain, not even notice pain, and pay for it the next day. Or in my case, for the next 4 days. You get out there, you get going, and things are feeling pretty good. You've got a little hitch in your run, but you don't even notice it. You hit a couple shots, make a couple passes, grab a couple boards, and you just want to keep feeling the natural high. So you keep going. And then you get tired, but you push yourself one more game, because you think that you can keep up the high. You need to feel the rush - you don't want to go back to the real world where you're just yourself. You want to keep being this alter ego that's so much cooler, so much more than what you are during the day. It's like Clark Kent when he's Superman.

But you're not Superman. Sometimes, when you push yourself that last game, it's a character building experience, because you learn something. But sometimes, all you do is get tired, lose focus, get sloppy, and hurt yourself.

And right now, it's more about not being hurt than anything else.

-Chairman

From Good to Great

So it appears that our Illini are at least good. Maybe even very good. So the question that is being asked here is, "what will it take for us to be great?"

The thing that jumps out at me first is that we need to keep our starters from picking up dumb fouls. What's interesting is that to not commit these fouls can come from a couple tactics. The first is to stop reaching in for steals and being aggressive. Really, that's not a terrible idea. But it's also not a great one. You need to stay aggressive. The refs tend to let things go if you're consistently aggressive. The opponent tends to tire out both mentally and physically if you stay aggressive. And you get cheap buckets through the cumulative effects. It's like winning a boxing match by giving solid shots to the body for 7 rounds, rather than using that one big knockout blow. You just keep working, an it takes its toll on the opposition. So, you need to stay aggressive. Where I think that we need to improve is playing defense before the guy you're guarding gets the pass. Defense without the ball is what separates the athletes from the stoppers. You can be athletic and recover from your mistakes. But if you're a true stopper, your guy may never get a chance to make that mistake, and in fact, you force guys that you're not guarding to make mistakes.

If you look at last year's team, I'd say that Deron was a stopper, who could muscle guys into submission over the course of 40 minutes. I think that Luther was an athlete who would gamble and come up big more than his fair share. But it's guys like Deron who let guys like Luther get the steals and breakaways. I don't think that we have a defensive stopper on the wing this year. I think that our bigs as a tandem can be stoppers against teams. And really, Dee can fill that role, though that's not his place on this team - last year, he could be more aggressive and take risks. This year, he needs to sag off, and not get fouls. I think that Randle is an athlete who can become a stopper. He's not there yet. He drifts in and out just about as much as Luther used to. You can win with superior team defense, but it becomes more poignant when you have a guy who just scares the daylights out of the other team with his defense.

Another aspect of this team that needs to improve for a true run at the title is the shot selection. I'm a huge fan of the 3 point shot. But I'm a fan of open 3's. Last year, you'd see our team shoot maybe 3 contested deep shots a game. This year, it's becoming relatively regular for us to run down the shot clock, not get a good shot, and then have Dee force a one-on-one move and a long shot. We need to not be quite as passive with our moves and passes on offense. I like how McBride has started a bit of a mid-range game. We need more of that. And we need Randle to start hitting open shots from 14 feet and in. Right now, you don't need to challenge him until he gets within 4 feet of the hoop. But overall, I like how aggressive Pruitt and Auggie have been the last couple weeks. We're getting very nice looks close in. But it could improve a bit, which leads us to the last point.

Our guards don't seem to recognize when our bigs are fighting hard for position. So many times, you see Auggie or Pruitt fighting hard for the spot, only to have the guard stay up a little too high to get a good angle. So, the guard dribbles away from them and reverses the ball. Instead, I'd like to see one more dribble towards the baseline in the hopes of getting a better angle into the post. Right now, all it takes is a half-front from the post defender to scare off the pass. If you force a 3/4 front or a full front to stop the pass, then all of a sudden, your ball reversal is more effective. Think of it this way. If I force you to put a full front on me, when the point takes the ball down toward the free throw line, even if the ball doesn't get inside, you see the first ball reversal take you back to the wing, and a second pass get to the other side. All of a sudden, if you look back at the original post player, he's got his guy on his back, away from the hoop. Yahtzee. Instead, our guards will hesitate, and not take the dribble deeper, instead staying high. The post defender can stay inside of the offensive player, and doesn't lose position on the reversal. The defense doesn't break down, and we end up with a challenged shot.

I think that we had a nice showing against Indiana, despite the loss. We came back strong on the road against a good team. We dug ourselves too big of a hole by playing poorly on offense early, but we almost got ourselves out. This actually gave me much more of a good feeling than beating Michigan St. at home. We competed hard in a hostile environment, and were legitimately disappointed that we didn't win. It wasn't like Iowa where we just got beaten badly, and had no real shot to win after the first 16 minutes. The Indiana loss is the sort of loss that a young team like ours needs to have once (and only once).

We'll see how it pans out. We're 18-2 right now, and 4-2 in the Big Ten. We'll take care of Purdue this Saturday and run 8-0 at home. We need to find a way to win 3 more on the road to put us at 12-4 in the Big Ten. Figure that we can handle Minnesota, regardless of where we play them. We'll see about Wisconsin, Ohio St., Michigan, and Michigan St. It will be difficult to pull out more than two wins, but if we take Wisconsin, that makes things very different. If we're 6-2 at that point, we're running the conference, and I wouldn't be shocked if we were 10-2 going into Michigan. If we're 5-3 with those road games, it could very well be that we end up 11-5 or even 10-6. I still think that a conservative estimate is that we end up with 4 or 5 losses. And if we Which still leaves us as a 2 or 3 seed, and a very possible road to go deep in the dance. And if we get hot, I still think that a 1 is up for grabs.

-Chairman

Who the Hell was Robert Frost, Anyway?

I'm sick of the road less traveled. You never meet any interesting people.

I was having a conversation with Kubla Curran a few weeks back. And we came to the same conclusion. And that was that we have not paid enough attention to things in life where at first glance there doesn't seem to be much depth, but upon further examination, there are all sorts of implications that just don't seem apparent.

For example, let's look at poker. Let's say that you're holding a pair of Queens in the hole. The board comes up King, 10, 7, 3, 2, with no flush draws possible. You've bet at the pot twice with two decent sized bets, and you've been called twice by a solid player. Your opponent checks to you after 5th street. You're pondering another bet. On the surface, there's nothing wrong with another bet here. You've got a good chance at the best hand. Your opponent was probably sitting on somehting like 8-9 and was hoping for a hit. But it probably missed. So it wouldn't hurt to bet, would it? If you take a step back, and look at it from a different perspective, you may have a very different thought, though.

If you bet here, what are the odds that your opponent calls? Most likely small. They'll only call if they have a mid-sized king. They'll either fold with a weak hand, or raise with a big King, 2 pair, or a set. So, if you bet, your opponent will likely either fold (which means that you could have gotten to the same result by just checking, and also forcing your opponent to show their cards) or raise (upon which you will likely end up folding). And even if they call, if they're actually a solid player, you're probably doomed. If you bet, things will never improve. It can only get worse. So, you should check. Anything else is pretty much a terrible play.

So what does that have to do with anything? I'm wondering about the implications of the things that I do with myself now. The everyday, trivial things that I don't think twice about seem to be conspiring against me. I need to get some things cleaned up. It's interesting. I don't think about it a lot, but when I step back, I realize that the everyday relationships that I am in with people are a very volatile system. The relationships that I put time into will inevitably damage other relationships, which do not get as much attention. And the influences that each relationship has on me will compound the situation even further. For example, if I hang out with my friend who is really big into movies, I'll probably end up going out to a bunch of movies. And as a result, I not only will spend less time with my friends who are into basketball, but I'll also have more of my focus on movies, rather than basketball. This is particularly troubling if you realize that the different people with whom you are friends are vastly different in demeanor, preferences, and beliefs.

Every choice that we make has consequences. It's just that some of them are subtle, and can go unnoticed, unless you know that you're looking for it.

-Chairman

John 9:6

I can see. I don't recall spit or mud. It was more of a trippy combination of bright zaps and the fuzzy background lights induced by applying a slight pressure to the eyes. And I'm sure that the local anesthetic helped, too. The whole experience was sort of cool in a Space Mountain sort of way. And the end result is 20/15. And x-ray vision.

The week in Boston (okay, Worcester) was pretty interesting. One thing that I noticed is how malleable language is. If I got into a conversation with a local, after a few moments, I'd let it slip that I was just b-ah-rrowing my bro's c-ah. Or that I was headed up to the b-ah to get some d-ahk beer. And as amusing as that was, I don't really feel the need to keep it. Basically, I got some good seafood, watched some football, and had a vision defect cured after 18 years.

One very amusing night was last Saturday. We were off at a sports b-ah watching the Pats-Broncos. And of course, my brother hates the Pats. I'm largely indifferent to the outcome of the game. I've always liked the Broncos, since the old John Elway days (particularly since they punked the Browns twice!), though I haven't really been forced to my usual routine of rooting for the Bengals until they fall out of contention, and then switching over to the Broncos. On the other hand, I also root for the dynasty to continue, but I also enjoy seeing people going home unhappy. So, I was more or less on the fence. But not my brother. He was actively rooting for the Broncos and against the Pats.

So, as the Patriots fumbled away their chance at another Super Bowl, my brother gets creative. After the 2nd fumble, he stands up, with a fork in his hand, and just drops it on the ground, and says (loudly), "oops, I fumbled." The glares that we got were pretty much priceless. Later on, after Adam Vinatieri hits the second kick, which got all of the Pats fans riled up, my brother declares, "This is football. And you guys are getting excited about a soccer player." It got to the point where after every Pats first down, we'd have this dude, wearing this huge foam mask/head that was professionally airbrushed (and darned cool looking), screaming, "Fi-rr-st Down!" at us while doing the ref's motion at us. Good times.

Anyway, we've been back to school for a week now. Classes will go smoothly this spring. One required course that I am pretty much already mailing in. One psych course that looks to be cake. And one independent study that is for research that I probably would've done anyway. I do have a bunch of other research that needs to be done quickly, but over the course of the semester, this will be a very manageable semester. The trick? Getting a jump on my summer paper during the semester so that I don't kill myself this summer. I think that it can get done, as soon as I get an idea for a topic in my head.

Let's see... later, we'll have more on the Illini and why that loss against Indiana was actually more interesting to me than the win against Michigan St. And we'll also have some thoughts about why we play the games that we do.

-Chairman

Of course...

Being out here makes me laugh because all of the women sound like the wife from Family Guy. And I can't stop laughing internally. Not all of the guys sound like Peter. But just about all of the local womenfolk sound like Lois. And it's darned hilarious.

-Chairman

Finding the Roots

So, I've spent the last few days back in the northeast. Worcester, MA, to be more specific, home of Holy Cross and more importantly, former stomping grounds of ESPN Page 2's Sports Guy, Bill Simmons. And I can't help but wonder why it is that people in the Midwest always think that people from the Northeast are rude. I have a suspicion that it's the same reason that they think that blacks are violent and that Mexicans are lazy. Because it's true... wait. That's not what I meant to say. I meant to say that it's because stereotypes are easy.

But I have an issue with how people from Philly, New York, Boston, etc. are considered to be rude. I think that it's a cultural thing, and that at the heart of it, it's not that they're rude, but that they have a different style than the people in the Midwest. Here's the example that I heard once, and like to use. There's a tourist in line trying to buy a train ticket in the morning. They wait their turn, and when they get up to the front of the line, they ask the clerk which lines run where, and how much they cost. Then two people in the back of the line yell out, "hey, let's move it already!" or "c'mon, we a'int got all day!" The tourist concludes that the locals are just rude loudmouths, and returns home with a story to tell.

But the problem isn't that the locals are rude. It's that the tourist didn't understand the local custom. In the northeast, things tend to move fast. You've got a line full of people, just about all of whom would be more than happy to answer the tourist's question while they were waiting. Instead, the tourist, keeps to himself, and waits to ask the question, with the end result being that everyone in line has to wait an extra 2 minutes. And they let them know about it. In New York, you have a culture where there are newsstands where some of the regulars can just walk by, grab a paper, leave cash on one end of the counter, and pick up their change at the end of the counter without ever breaking stride, with the only exchange being, "Thanks." "Welcome." People have things to do, places to be.

But I think that it's more than that. In the Northeast, things are crowded. Cities grew up on themselves in a pretty haphazard way. It's not the nice, clean grid that you'll find in a lot of the Midwestern and Western cities. As you get more space, people want to carve out a little niche for themselves. They want their little piece of paradise that's away from everyone else. And when you're in the Midwest and West, you can do that. It's a little harder in the Northeast. But as you get your space, you also get more independent. Things need to be done on your schedule, your way. And when you run into something that's different, well, your view is turned on its head, and you don't know how to react. Which makes sense. You adapt to your environment.

If you're growing up in the suburbs, there aren't as many people who are normally on a given block. You recognize them instantly. So, you don't talk to strangers. Because there's a reasonable likelihood that they're serial killers who rape coprses. But in a city block, with all sorts of high rises and businesses, you are bound to have a ton of strangers. The likelihood that they're corpse raping, serial killers diminishes immensely. It's much more likely that they live or work there. So talking to strangers is a much more reasonable scenario.

That's where the disjoint lies. I think that people in the Northeast, by virtue of their proximity to one another, are more interdependent. They rely on each other more, and the things that they do end up being that way. People in the Midwest... well, they try to figure stuff out on their own, end up being more independent. After all, that's the Protestant work ethic, isn't it? These styles and cultures clash. Folks from the Northeast are rude. Folks from the Midwest are rubes.

All I know is that I'm thankful that I'm not like that. Not like those ignorant Midwesterners or those assholes from the Northeast.

-Chairman

Who Will Protect This House?

We will, we will.

We have a new intro before our basketball games. It adds the familiar Under Armour chant to what we had last year with Ali screaming "The Champ is here!"

My statements about this team still stand. At the start of the season, I figured on a Sweet 16 team. After our non-conference run, I was thinking Elite 8, maybe Final Four. And now, after we held serve against Michigan St.? No changes. Still Elite 8, maybe Final Four. We didn't find out anything new on the positive side, really.

Our defense is good. But we already knew that. You've seen me harp on this before. No one has cracked 65 on us. And Michigan St., who normally scores in the mid 80's was held to 50. Yikes. We force teams to do two things that most teams don't do well. One, they need to pass well at all 5 spots. You can't have some guy who can't make an effective pass, otherwise, we recover too quickly, and you have to work again. Very few teams can do that well. We saw that Michigan St. just couldn't take advantage the situations where they had us out of position. If you can't move the ball smoothly, forget about it. And if they happen to get a look going toward the hole, you may have Auggie flying at you to block your shot. The second thing, is that we force teams to make outside shots. Our defense is effective because the only open shots that we give up tend to be from outside. If you can't make open 3's on us, forget about it. Michigan St. had their share of open shots from the outside. They just didn't hit any of them, because they're not good shooters (just like the last 4 years, at least). We didn't give the ball away, so they didn't have transition opportunities. And we get back so well off of our own misses, than the few transition attempts they had got challenged. Interestingly, I think that teams that try to slow it down on us are doomed. Teams that waste 15 seconds on offense will only have 20 seconds to get a shot on us. We're so good that it's often on the third or fourth cycle through before you get a look on us. And 20 seconds just isn't enough time when you have to reset.

What was nice to find out is that we can still do this to a really athletic, talented team. I'm not sure if we can do this to a team that's as athletic as Michigan St. and really smart on the floor. And I hope that we don't have to find out.

Where this game actually gave me some questions was the holes that we had on offense.

Jamar Smith was taken out of the game, entirely, by Drew Neitzel. Up until this point, we hadn't faced a team that was able to have enough defenders to put someone legitimately pesky on Jamar. Most teams only have one real defender, and he would go on Dee. Michigan St. had the ability to put Shannon Brown on Dee (former HS teammates, no relation), and have Neitzel chase Jamar around the court. End result? Jamar only got one shot, a missed (though it looked on-line) three pointer. The thing is, if he can't get it going on offense, he's not good enough of a defender to keep in there against stronger players (like Michigan St. had). For the first time that I can really remember, Jamar was a non-factor when we actually needed his offense.

Auggie lost his confidence in the post. In the first half, he was fighting for position and getting the ball in great position. Problem is, he went off and was called for 4 travels early on (anyone who was watching on TV - were these legit calls?), and was clearly frustrated (and close to getting T'eed up). In the second half, he was content to be a high screener, rather than really fight in the post. In fact, none of our bigs really demanded the ball consistently. Pruitt did on a couple occasions, but it wasn't consistent throughout the game, and Marcus Arnold was a zero factor that game (and looked like he may have been a little gimpy). And oddly enough, Warren Carter only got one shot off. We just had nothing inside.

I was actually OK with how Rich played. He was in the flow of the offense, and even created his own shot once (nice little head fake outside, 2 dribbles toward the free throw line, buried a 18 footer). Where I am very concerned is with Randle. His range stops at 14 feet. Maybe. He's got no confidence in his shot right now. He's not taking makeable shots, and when he is forced to shoot (shot clock running down), he just chucks it up there with a resigned look on his face. Not good. His buckets need to come by breaking down defenders off the dribble. Which he can do to most 3's. But not with teams that run a smaller man at him. I haven't seen him work the post, but that may be where he needs to work to get some points.

Here's the deal. Teams that only have one scorer don't win championships. They can scare the daylights out of teams, but it's hard to win 4 consecutive games against good teams with only once scorer. Dee may be able to average 12 out of 22 per game over a season, but it's hard to do it 4 games in a row. There's bound to be one off game in there. If if no one else is used to coming up big, you'll end up with a tough loss. And we know that. We'll learn from this game. I think that we'll find more ways to get Jamar open. And we'll get to the point where our bigs will keep fighting for position (and get the ball). And Randle can't really keep shooting this badly (can he?). The question is always do the other teams learn to play us, or do we identify our weaknesses before that happens?

My prediction still stands. This team will have a legit shot to make a run in March. We're not as talented or dominant as last year, but we may be just as effective. Up next? At Iowa. Always a tough game, but we should be better. We'll see.

-Chairman

The Heuvos to Call a Bluff

Fifth street just hit. And he bet. What do you do? Sometimes, you just don't think that they have a hand, much less the nuts. You look at the history, you look at the person, and you look at yourself. And the story just quite doesn't add up. This has to be a bluff. There has to be something awry. You think that they're trying to pull one over on you. This has to be a bluff. You don't have the pot odds to call. Your hand isn't that strong. But you just have that feeling. This has to be a bluff. Do you call? Sometimes you're right, and look like a genius. Sometimes, you look like a donkey. Do you call? There's no shame to folding. It's a safe play, and may even be the right play. Most people would fold to this bet. Do you call?

If any of you guys who read here haven't wandered over to IJAB, head over there and take a peek. Particularly at the January 2, 2006 posting and comments. I think that we've come to the consensus that there's often a disjoint between the things that we profess to believe and the things that we do on an everyday level.

Here's the challenge for people who profess to be socially conscious, to be Christian, to be different in a good way: Be aware of the implications of what you do as an everyday consumer. This is what I do, so this is what is at the forefront of my mind.

I'm not saying that people are evil. I do think that people are lazy and unanalytical. My challenge isn't saying that people are hypocritical. That implies some sort of active choice, I think. My challenge suggests that people are unaware because they haven't ever stopped to think about the implications. But once you think about it, then it becomes an active choice.

My challenge involves the everyday, the things that we don't think about, the eggs and sausage that we eat in the morning and the coffee that we drink at work. It involves the furniture that we sit on, the clothes that we wear, and the cars that we drive.

Something as simple as eggs can be rather interesting to think about. Where do the eggs come from? Is it a large farm that sends all sorts of bio-pollutants into the surrounding water? Does it draw an unnecessarily high amount of water? How far were the eggs shipped to the distributor? How about the wholesaler? And how much further to the store? What's the cost (both financial and environmental) for those eggs? Are there alternatives? More and more there has been a discounting of the "organic" term. More interesting (and more important to the socially conscious consumer) are terms like local and sustainable. A recent NY Times article describes this phenomenon in an interesting way. Note that Doc Hatfield is the founder of the Country Natural Beef cooperative.


Mr. Hatfield was just as pleased about an unexpected byproduct of selling locally: the bond forged between rural and urban residents.

"Most of the ranchers are rural, religious, conservative Republicans," Mr. Hatfield said. "And most of the customers are urban, secular, liberal Democrats. When it comes to healthy land, healthy food, healthy people and healthy diets, those tags mean nothing. Urbanites are just as concerned about open spaces and healthy rural communities as people who live there. When ranchers get to the city, they realize rural areas don't have a corner on values. I think that's what we are most excited about."


Why is it that the founder of the co-op (who is likely one of the rural, religious, conservatives) finds that his customers are urban, secular, and liberal? I think that part of this is the general lack of concern towards the concrete. While some of the more esoteric questions are worth thinking about, I think that too much energy is spent debating things like creationism, for example. And not enough spent on the day-to-day reality that we're in. My challenge to you? Shift gears down from 5th gear to 1st gear when you're thinking about faith, religion, philosophy, etc. Instead of considering the underlying questions of the universe all the time, think about less sexy ideas, like where it is your eggs come from. And then if you find that there's something to it, then we'll think about potential changes to how we live.

-Chairman

Support for Evolution

Happy New Year, everyone.

Before we start taking oursevles too seriously, we take time out to remember Charles Darwin, possibly the most influential person in the last 300 years. Namely, we remember him not for his contribution to science as most others would. But rather, we remember him in a different way. We remember that he married his first cousin. That's hot. Maybe that's how evolution works.

Anyway, looking at my resolutions from last year, I liked them quite a bit. In fact, I like them so much, that I'm going to use most of them again this year. That's not to say that I was entirely unproductive in 2K5. It's just that some of the resolutions were general enough to be eternally useful. For example:

1. Own your shit... whatever the hell that means
2. Always hit on soft 17's

I think that I managed to do a good job on those this year, but I want to keep that up. It was the more concrete things that I sort of forgot to do. The health related ones need be addressed, and will move up in priority:

3. Gym 4x a week
4. Get my legs back

I'm sick of not being able to play basketball or even run around. It just hurts too much to accelerate, stop, or change directions. Which is pretty much what sports involves. But we do have a pretty good start on the year. I've got a nice routine (that finally includes ab work and some bike work) that I like. An additional resolution is to modify my daily diet back to how it was back in my junior year when I lived with Matt. This will involve more chicken and fish, and more veggies. And less eating out. Most of these are lifestyle changes, and oddly enough, I seem to be able to incorporate these relatively well. As far as more concrete goals, we'll just leave it with:

5. Take care of the stuff that should've been done in 2k5

Anyway, we're back to work this week. Next week, we're in Boston to hang out and get rid of my contacts for good. Until then.

-Chairman