So you might have seen the recent Brawny paper towel television adverts featuring the Brawny Man come to life. They’re actually quite funny, for what they are. However, something has been striking me odd about them — I mean beyond the usual oddities and absurdities of the commercial world. Wasn’t sure what it was, but I think I might have a bead on it.

One of the first of the ads show the Brawny Man performing a number of “manly” outdoor tasks — chopping wood, feeding a sick animal, fixing a car, etc. — all performed in an over-the-top deadpan that is way funnier viewed than described.

Anyway, it occured to me after seeing the ads a few times that what was odd was that nothing was going wrong.

The axe head didn’t fly off into the forest as he swung. The animal didn’t freak out and attack. The car didn’t start rolling away down the hill as he closed the hood. I think I’ve been conditioned over the years to expect mishap in commercials.

Then the slightly less shallow thought came to me that really I had been conditioned to expect the male in commercials to screw up. The father is always overweight, balding, and dense as a chopping block — even if the rest of the family is good looking and healthy. He either screws up something trying to fix it, or is sitting on the couch watching the game while his handy wife takes care of it.

And here was a guy actually doing things. He didn’t screw them up, and he wasn’t suffering a bunch of pratfalls and other slapstick.

Of course, just as soon as I started thinking this might be a pretty subtlely subversive advertisement, the truth dawned with their next ads — the Brawny Academy, a sort of advertisement-meets-reality-show where eight husbands are sent by their wives to what amounts to man boot camp, to be taught how to do manly things and be men in manly ways, while remaining thoughtful and sensitive. It’s hosted online, and I trust Google will guide you to it quite easily if you so desire.

So much for being subversive. ;D

Still, the ads are funny.

The grandest of all the great Euro cycling races begins tomorrow, and I am melancholy about it. Not because Lance Armstrong won’t be going for #8, far from it — I was excited to see what would happen post-Lance, frankly. But with stories, rumors, and consternation flying around about some of the biggest names in the sport, including favorites Basso and Ulrich, there is something of a gray haze over tomorrow’s Prologue for me.

Having said that, I am still very excited to see Le Tour get started — and perhaps better that the sacrifices were made prior to the start, so the news mongering can be thrown to the side for at least a little while, even though God knows the media won’t let it go during the race.

And no matter what, I can go climb on my own bike and climb my own hills to escape the corrosive chatter.

The 2005 edition of the Tour de France begins on July 2. Most famously this year, at least for American audiences, is Lance Armstrong going for his seventh straight victory, now for the Discovery Channel team (US Postal giving up their cycling team support last year). But whatever the outcome of the race, Lance has said this will be his last attempt.

In the US, the race will once again be on the Outdoor Life Network.

Other Sites

• Le Tour de France official site
• Tour de France blog
• BBC coverage
• TSN.ca coverage
• Yahoo coverage

The official announcement came after a day of speculation:

Angels designate pitcher Jeff Weaver for assignment; Club recalls pitcher Jered Weaver from Triple-A Salt Lake

Jeff Weaver, 29, was 3-10 with a 6.29 ERA (88.2 IP - 62 ER) in 16 games with the Angels this season. He allowed 114 hits (18 HR), walked 21 and struck out 62 in that span. Opponents batted .309 against Weaver in 2006. He signed a one-year contract with the Angels, Feb. 15, 2006.

Man, no way anybody could have anticipated that headline during the off-season, eh?

Of course, the other half of the speculation is that the starter-starved Dodgers might take a risk on him again, which if I understand the mechanics of DFA would require some sort of trade with the Angels in the next few days. I wouldn’t mind seeing him back in Dodger blue as our situation is pretty desperate, even though the prospect of seeing those homerun balls flying over the outfield walls again doesn’t much appeal.

DFA details

I think I have a bit more clarity on some of the details of being DFA. Basically within 10 days, another team would have to make a trade with the Angels to guarantee getting Jeff. After 10 days, he is free to sign with whomever he wants, and who want him. Which, depending on the salary details (there are other wrinkles there I haven’t read up on yet), might be worth waiting for. Why give up something when you don’t need to? On the other hand, if you’re desperate enough, it might be worth doing the trade if you don’t have to give up too much. We’ll have to see.

Radio episode of Philosophy Talk, from 2004: Baseball

What can we learn from baseball? Are the passions we have for our baseball teams and heroes irrational? If so, what makes passions for families, cities, countries, universities, or radio stations more rational? Are all allegiances and loyalties ultimately arbitrary? Eminent Kant scholar and baseball fan extraordinare Allen Wood visits.

You can make the case that there is no such thing as high culture and low culture, really — just culture. From the listening notes:

What is philosophical about baseball? We are loyal to all sorts of things, such as family and country, and we are loyal to baseball teams. Is this rational? What are you loyal to? Some people think that baseball isn’t intrinsically worthwhile, so there is no reason to care about it. Others think that caring about something makes it worthwhile. Ken introduces Allen Wood, professor at Stanford. Why do people care about baseball? Wood thinks that it is partly because of the dramatic elements of the game. There is both a team and an individual, a hero. Wood likens feelings for a baseball team to the hero in a play or story.

Why is baseball so popular with its fans? Wood thinks it may be because it requires a lot of attention and rewards study. One of its interesting features is that there is no clock. Games could, in theory, go on forever. John points out that even though baseball was created long before television, it has many aspects that are well suited to television. Does it make sense to remain loyal to a particular team given the mobility of our society? Wood thinks that it is only partly rational to be interested in aesthetic objects. It could also be for the connection to a particular town.

Why do we adore baseball players when so many of them have been awful people? Many of the heroes are constructions based loosely on the real players. But, do the constructions get into the hall of fame or the real players? Is the integrity of baseball being damaged by the players’ use of performance enhancing substances? Is baseball any better than the diversions and low-minded entertainment that is around? John asks if we can’t say the same of opera.