My favorite Charlie Sheen moments from today

If Charlie Sheen dies of an overdose tomorrow or kills himself or asphyxiates while in the middle of a porn star three-way (all equally plausible possibilities), I suspect that 20 years from now, we'll be telling our children about this day the same way our parents told us about the moon landing. Maybe not with quite so much reverence. But just as much awe.

Major League aside, I've never been a big Charlie Sheen fan. I like several of his movies--Platoon, Wall Street, Lucas, Men At Work--but I suspect that almost any other actor could have played his parts in those films and I would have liked them just as much. Rick Vaughn is the only role of his that I absolutely can't imagine anyone else playing. Also, there's always just been something too...Charlie Sheen-ish about Charlie Sheen for me to like, if that makes any sense. So this was kind of a great day, in that it complete validated my anti-Charlie Sheen bias. As if the past few days--not to mention, weeks and months--hadn't already. But while the story admittedly isn't quite as significant as a potential government shutdown or various revolutions in the Middle East or whatever, it was just an epic day of journalism. Hey, not everything has to be Watergate.

In Transmetropolitan, there's an issue where Spider Jerusalem gets bored and starts calling into various TV talk shows to terrorize the hosts. That's what I thought of when I saw Sheen's interviews with Today, Good Morning America and TMZ today. I mean, we knew he had major issues, but no one knew they were this out of control. The TMZ interview, especially, was really just awful to watch, regardless of how you feel about Sheen. You know that kid in high school who would never get into a fight himself, but was really good at instigating them between other guys? That's kind of how it came off, as, over the course of 45 minutes, the douchey TMZ guy happily gave Sheen all the rope he needed to hang himself.

(I'll cop to occasionally watching bits and pieces of TMZ's TV show, and I often find myself wondering what those people--aside from Harvey Levin, who actually seems like a smart guy--would be doing if not for that site/show. Flipping burgers? Digging graves? Selling their bodies in West Hollywood for rent money? It's unbelievable that hardworking Americans are losing their homes left and right, meanwhile, that idiot with the long hair is probably pulling down six figures.)

So between his three appearances today, these are my favorite statements of Sheen's during his media blitz:

4) "Aaron Sorkin, anyone? Dude just won an Oscar last night. They got in my man's grill and they messed up his blend and the ink in his pen ran out. The show, my dad will even admit this, drifted into the rose garden and wilted after that." (TMZ)

Upon hearing this, it suddenly dawned on me that we never really did hear any grumbling from The West Wing's cast about the quality of the show after Sorkin left. And considering how awful the fifth season was especially, grumbling would have been justified. Martin Sheen, in particular, must have felt it the most. No more stirring speeches. No more folksy quips. Or at least, if there were stirring speeches and folksy quips, they weren't nearly as good as before. So if this is true, I guess good for him for keeping his feelings to himself. I wondered if Sheen felt better about the last season when the show started to get good again. Then I remembered that he was barely in it, as it basically became the Josh and Santos Show. So probably not.

3) "You borrow my brain for five seconds and just be like, 'Dude! Can't handle it! Unplug this bastard! Yeah!' Because it just...it fires in a way that is...um...I don't know...maybe not from this particular terrestrial realm." (GMA)

Aside from maybe Charles Manson, I'm not sure I've ever seen someone so eager to hype his own insanity.

2) "Because I'm telling the truth and you love me?" - Sheen to one of his "Goddesses," as he gives her a hug and kiss. (TMZ)

I don't really know what to make of Sheen's porn star friends. I mean, they have to know he's completely and absolutely fucked up, right? So are they using him for his fame and money, or is it that they're also fucked up and as such, legitimately don't see anything weird about this situation? If it was anyone else but porn stars, I'd be inclined to believe the former. But based on countless interviews I've heard on Howard Stern, I'm fairly certain there's no such thing as a perfectly sane porn star. So they probably really do buy into his bullshit. Once all the dust of this current crisis settles, I hope they can all get together and make that porn star mansion plan work.

I feel a lot less kindly towards Sheen's idiot entourage, who also appeared during the interview, laughing their asses off at their pal's self destruction. Unfortunately, instead of having a Turtle, a Drama, and an E, Sheen seems to have all Turtles looking out for their own self-interests. Is there any chance those guys won't leave him high and dry the moment he tries to get better and the party stops?

1) Jeff Rosen: "You want a raise?" Sheen: "Yeah. Look at what they put me through." (Today)

Most people in Sheen's shoes would be trying to figure out a way to keep CBS from firing him. Sheen, on the other hand, has the balls to demand a $26,400,000-a-year raise.

I don't know if he's trying to absolutely guarantee that he gets fired, is hoping to use that figure as some sort of starting point for salary negotiations, or genuinely thinks he deserves $26 million more a year, but honestly? I like the cut of his jib. It's rare to see this level of self-confidence, which is usually only found in serial killers. I think he should at least consider running for president.

Panel of the Week

From Action Comics #898:

Oscar Picks

Best Picture

What will win: The Social Network

What should win: The Social Network

What shouldn't win: The Kids Are All Right

What would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: The Social Network

Best Director

Who will win: Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan

Who should win: David Fincher, The Social Network

Who shouldn't win: David O. Russell, The Fighter

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Christopher Nolan, Inception

Best Actor

Who will win: Colin Firth, The King's Speech

Who should win: James Franco, 127 Hours

Who shouldn't win: Jeff Bridges, True Grit

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Leonardo DiCaprio, Shutter Island

Best Actress

Who will win: Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Who should win: Natalie Portman, Black Swan

Who shouldn't win: Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone
Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Ashley Bell, The Last Exorcist

Best Supporting Actor

Who will win: Jeremy Renner, The Town
Who should win: Christian Bale, The Fighter
Who shouldn't win: Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are Alright
Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Sam Rockwell, Iron Man 2

Best Supporting Actress

Who will win: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Who should win: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Who shouldn't win: Melissa Leo, The Fighter

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Rebecca Hall, The Town

Best Writing – Original Screenplay

Who will win: Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg, The Kids Are Alright
Who should win: Christopher Nolan, Inception

Who shouldn't win: Mike Leigh, Another Year

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland, The Last Exorcism

Best Writing – Adapted Screenplay

Who will win: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network

Who should win: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network

Who shouldn't win: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, True Grit

Who would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network

Best Animated Feature

What will win: Toy Story 3

What should win: Toy Story 3

What shouldn't win: The Illusionist

What would win if we weren't bound by The Man and his crap list of nominees: Toy Story 3

Dwayne McDuffie

1993 might have been the worst year ever for comic books.

DC followed up the awful "Death of Superman" storyline with an even worse one where they brought him back. Marvel was publishing a gazillion comics a month, making it economically impossible to keep up with everything. Image was putting out crap. Nicely drawn crap. But crap. And the entire industry seemed geared towards speculators and ADD fanboys. It was so bad that not long afterwards, I quit reading comics for a few years.

Arguably, the one bright spot that entire miserable year was the launch of Milestone Comics.

Considering the sheer glut of bad superhero comics being produced, the last thing the industry probably needed at that point was another line of superhero books. But rather than just put out comics that the masses would devour, Milestone took the much riskier approach of focusing on minority superheroes. Black superheroes were nothing new in 1993, but the idea of not giving them a name with "Black" in front of it (i.e., Black Lighting, Black Panther,etc.) was surprisingly revolutionary. Still, all this could have easily been dismissed as a gimmick; an exercise in political correctness, except the comics were actually really good. Hardware was my favorite, but I also enjoyed Static and Blood Syndicate.

The writer behind these books was Dwayne McDuffie, who died today. Aside from the Milestone books, he also worked on the Justice League series on Cartoon Network and some recent stuff for DC and Marvel. Unlike with most comic book creator deaths, McDuffie was still relatively young and probably had his best work ahead of him.

He was also a major online presence on various message boards and websites, going all the way back to Compuserve. I never personally interacted with him, but from what I saw, he was never anything less than a class act.

Sometime soon, I'm going to back and pick up all those Milestone comics I missed when I stopped reading comics.

Panel of the Week

From The Boys #51:

Assholes without Borders

Borders announced today that its two D.C. stores were among the 200 that will be closing. I'm bummed. I love Borders. I've really loved its generous coupon program these past few years, which, hindsight being 20/20, might have been a little bit too generous. When you start training people to only shop when they're getting at least 33% off, you've pretty much permanently shaved 33% off your profit margin. A few weeks ago, I was in Borders and saw a book I wanted, but couldn't bring myself to pay full price for it, even though I wouldn't think twice about doing so at Barnes & Noble or an airport news stand. I came back two days later with a coupon.

When I had a retail job several years ago, the company I worked for declared bankruptcy and our store--along with pretty much every other one in the chain--immediately went into liquidation mode and soon closed. I wasn't overly broken up about this, as I'd been there only a couple of months and it was just a short-term gig while I looked for something better. But some of the longtime employees took it really hard. It especially sucked for my boss, who, when he applied for management positions at other stores, was often told that his years of managerial experience were nice, but they really wanted someone with a college degree. Having worked both retail and food service, I'll never say those jobs are easy, because they're not. But nor do they require college, even on the managerial level.

So I know what the Borders employees are in for, and it's not pretty. Liquidation sales are coming, and nothing brings out customers' inner assholes like A) The chance to save money, and B) The panic that they're not saving as much money as they think they could be.

Here are a few tips about how not to be that asshole customer during the upcoming liquidation. (I was thinking of structuring this as a Goofus and Gallant-type thing, but frankly, I couldn't come up with enough examples of good customer behavior to justify the Gallant part.)

1) Don't ask when sale prices will be reduced further. The rank-and-file employees often don't know. And if they do, they've probably been instructed not to tell customers.

2) On a related note, if you want something badly that even on sale is more than you want to pay, go ahead and get it instead of holding out for as long as possible. One customer had her heart set on this particular item. I guess she lived or worked nearby the store, so she would often come in and look at it. She asked, unsuccessfully, if we could hold it for her until the price went down further. (More on that in a moment.) She would even call every couple of days to see if we still had it in stock. And the whole time, I wanted to scream at her, "Look, you're quibbling over saving $30 or $40 more, tops. JUST. FUCKING. BUY. IT." But she didn't. And eventually when she called, I got to tell her, "No, sorry, it's gone." That gave me more satisfaction than it probably should have.

3) No, seriously, you can't return that. I'm guessing Borders will soon institute a no returns policy, as the whole point of liquidation is to get merchandise out of the store, not add to the inventory. Our last week, we had people trying to return stuff they'd bought during the liquidation, despite several "No Returns or Exchanges" signs posted around the registers. A woman came in with something she'd bought the week after we declared bankruptcy, and asked for a refund. We told her no. She asked if she could exchange it. Again, we told her no. Apparently completely oblivious to the "STORE CLOSING! 40%-50% OFF EVERYTHING!" signs throughout the store, she got angry and told us that with our attitude, we wouldn't be in business for much longer. We all got a good laugh out of that.

4) Don't ask employees to hold stuff for you until the prices go down. Why should they care if you save more money? Also, doing so would likely be a fireable offense. See, the bonus of the person running the liquidation at each store depends on how much merchandise he can unload. When employees start hoarding merchandise, either for their benefit or a customer's, that's money out of his pocket. He won't be happy, and he likely has the authority to fire anyone he wants.

5) Don't be high maintenance and/or a dick. I mean, try never to be a high maintenance and/or a dick, but understand that doing so during a liquidation sale is a lot more likely to blow up in your face. Under normal circumstances, retail employees are obviously required to be nice and patient, or they'll lose their jobs. But if they're already losing their jobs, that fear isn't much of a motivator. For those three or four glorious weeks of our liquidation sale, my co-workers and I operated on three settings: Neutral, Unhelpful, and I Honestly Don't Give a Fuck.

Neutral was our default position. We performed the barest essentials of our jobs, which was basically to just ring customers up and not set them on fire.

If the customers got too needy, we'd shift into Unhelpful:

"Hey, I couldn't find what I was looking for. Do you have it in stock?"

"Sorry, if it's not on the shelf, we probably don't have it."

"Well, is there anywhere else you could check? In the back, or maybe call one of your other stores?"

"Not really."

"Do you think you'll be getting more in?"

"I dunno. Maybe."

"Can I leave my number so you can call me if you do?"

"I don't think I'm allowed to. Sorry."

I Honestly Don't Give a Fuck is the nuclear option of liquidation retail. I never got to this point myself, but my manager did, and it was great. This one woman was a longtime customer, and was always a pain in the ass. She came in during the sale and started making the same sort of annoying requests that my manager had been putting up with for years. This time though, he said--not with these exact words, but unmistakably something with that sentiment--that he'd soon be out of a job and he honestly didn't give a fuck about her problems. One of my fellow clerks, on his last day, literally did say, "I don't give a fuck," to a customer who, frankly, probably didn't deserve it. But hey, life's unfair.

I guess if there is one Gallant-esque tip I could give, it's this: If you find yourself in a conversation with a retail employee who's losing his job soon, ask him if he has anything lined up, and say something supportive if the answer is no. I'm not saying you necessarily need to really care, but I always thought it was a nice gesture when a customer acknowledged me as a human being and not just an extension of the cash register.

What The Rock is cookin'

The most exciting sporting event I've ever been to was Stephen Strasburg's debut with the Nationals last year. If I'd been at the Honda Center in Anaheim yesterday, last night's Monday Night Raw might have been a close second.

After seven years in Hollywood that ranged from blockbusters like "The Game Plan" and duds like "The Tooth Fairy," Dwayne Johnson came back to the scene that made him a star, announcing his return as the guest host for WrestleMania.

The crowd in Anaheim, California went absolutely berserk when the lights went out followed by the speakers blasting out, "If you smell....what The Rock....Is Cookin."

The most electrifying man in sports entertainment pulled off one of the most electrifying moments in recent WWE memory. It was a trip down memory lane for those fans that remember the WWE Attitude era, seeing The Rock pull off all his trademark lines while also trashing both heels and faces alike. (Bleacher Report)

"Absolutely berserk" is an understatement. A crowd hasn't demonstrated that level of complete and utter devotion to one man since Jonestown.

It feels more than a little foolish to talk about something happening in professional wrestling the same way I would something happening in football or baseball, but damn, that was some exciting stuff last night. For nearly 20 minutes, The Rock gave a speech to the crowd that managed to both point out how awful the WWE has become since he was a part of it (I missed that entire era, but fans seem to speak really highly of it, so I'll take their word for it) and inject new life into the company in the lead-up to WrestleMania. It was even more impressive when you consider how awful the preceding two hours of Raw had been, with weaker-than-usual matches and a stupid kiss-cam gimmick. Although, it was weirdly amusing to see The Miz and Michael Cole struggle to both give their condolences to Jerry Lawler on the death of his mother and maintain kayfabe, talking about how he was going to get his ass kicked at this Sunday's pay-per-view.

(Speaking of long speeches, I'll repeat a question I once asked on Twitter: Why is it that wrestlers can come out every week and give lengthy monologues without any visual aides whatsoever, but celebrated actors on Saturday Night Live can't get through more than a couple of lines without having to glance at cue cards? I'm not saying all these guys are gifted thespians, and some are clearly less gifted than others, but they're also a lot more talented than people give them credit for.)

The best part was The Rock trashing John Cena, while the crowd, who twice earlier that night had been wildly cheering Cena, started happily chanting, "Cena sucks!" I mean, just from a business perspective, regardless of how you feel about the WWE or professional wrestling in general, this is pretty fascinating. It would be like McDonald's introducing a new sandwich or bringing back the Arch Deluxe or whatever, and having the ad campaign center around how awful the Big Mac is. The WWE is taking the face of its company and biggest cash cow, and putting his image through the ringer. Maybe this results in Cena turning heel. (Not likely.) Maybe this storyline will end with The Rock developing respect for Cena and giving him The Rock Seal of Approval. (Unfortunately, much more likely.) But for now, it's interesting stuff.

It is a little weird that The Rock implied he'd be sticking around the WWE well beyond WrestleMania. In fact, he didn't so much imply it, as he came right out and said it. In all likelihood, he's not. Even part time. And if it wasn't for the fact that his movie career has stalled, he probably wouldn't be back now. (Of course, he only has himself to blame for that. It's not like anyone had a gun to his head, forcing him to abandon action films and make family-friendly crap like The Tooth Fairy or Race To Witch Mountain. At least, I hope no one did. It would explain a lot, though.) So I'm not sure how he's going to extricate himself from that guarantee. Or who knows, maybe there's a deal in place where he will stick around. If so, Linda McMahon should run on that accomplishment in her next Senate run, as it's far more impressive than anything else she's done.

Every now and then, the WWE proves it can pull off something great. Don't get me wrong, based on its track record, I still have faith that it might manage to screw even this up. But for now, I'm cautiously optimistic that the next couple of months are going to be a lot of fun.

Panel of the Week

From Star Trek: Infestation #1:

How many ways can you choke a kid, anyway?

It's a shame that A) Susan Burke teaches in Maryland and not D.C., and B) She wasn't arrested a year ago, because Michelle Rhee would have had a field day with this story if it had occurred in a District school when she was here. A teacher who allegedly choked and punched half the students in her class? That's the kind of bogeyman Rhee could have used to get rid of another hundred or so teachers.

This seems like an open-and-shut case, and it's not likely to be as interesting to the public as when a female teacher is caught having sex with a male student (which seems to be happening a lot more frequently these days, and which guys will only grudgingly admit is a crime, even as we resist the urge to high-five the victims), so it'll probably fade quickly.

But for now, it's still in the news and last night, WJLA did a story on it. At one point a reporter--I didn't catch who--was talking to one of the children who was allegedly abused by Burke. The reporter asked her what had happened.

Girl: "She choked me." WJLA reporter: "Show me how." And she did:

Okay, setting aside the wisdom in making an abuse victim--especially one her age--recreate the abuse on herself for no particularly good reason, how is this a question that needed to be asked?!? (And it was actually more like a command, which would seem to make it worse.)

We all know what choking is. What the fuck did the reporter think she was going to do? Wrap both of her hands around her throat and violently start shaking herself? Pull out a garrote, like in a James Bond film, slide it around her neck, and pull? What precise example of choking was he looking for?

Did he think that maybe the kids are lying, and tried to lay a clever trap, hoping that the girl wouldn't know what choking actually was and she'd start biting herself or something?

Did he think the image would look good on his reel when it's time for local Emmy submissions?

Thank God he didn't ask her to demonstrate on herself how she'd been punched.

Report from Smurf Village

Last month, I gushed about Smurfs' Village, a ridiculously addictive iPhone game that rewards you for working your little blue friends to death so the village leaders--specifically Papa Smurf--can live in relative luxury. In the past couple of weeks, I've seen three people playing it on the Metro. Admittedly, this isn't quite Angry Birds-level success, but I feel it's only a matter of time until people realize that building and maintaining a mushroom village from scratch is infinitely more rewarding than sending birds on kamikaze missions.

There have been a few significant changes to my village in the last month. By taking away what little space I'd given the Smurfs for lawns, I've been able to all but stack their homes on top of one another, freeing up land on which to put more gardens. Which means more crops to harvest, which means more gold and experience points. I couldn't be happier with our current revenue projections. Well done, slaves. Smurfs. Whatever.

Thanks to a software update, the snow has melted and Smurfette is visiting until Valentine's Day, granting experience points to nearby Smurfs as she strolls through the village. Unfortunately, it's only a brief visit. She warns you that she'll be leaving soon unless you build her house, which costs a ridiculous 30 Smurfberries. This comes out to $5 in real money through iTunes, or weeks of effort to acquire that many Smurfberries for free. High-maintenance bitch. (Amusingly, if you do have Smurfette's house in your village, it currently has dozens of Valentine's Day gifts from Smurfs piled up in front of it. One Smurfette. Dozens of Smurfs lusting after her. If this wasn't a children's entertainment property, this scenario would end very, very badly.)

Which brings us to the real reason I'm giving an update on how my village is doing, since it's not like I expect anyone has been on pins and needles, waiting to find out.

Over the winter break from school, 8-year-old Madison worked to dress up her simple mushroom home on the iPhone game Smurfs' Village. In doing so, she also amassed a $1,400 bill from Apple.

The Rockville second-grader didn't realize the Smurfberries she was buying on the popular game by Capcom Interactive were real purchases, much like buying a pair of shoes from Zappos or movie tickets from Fandango. After all, lots of children's games require virtual payments of pretend coins, treasure chests and gold to advance to levels.

But like a growing number of parents, Madison's mom, Stephanie Kay, was shocked to find very real charges from iTunes show up in her e-mail box days later. (Washington Post)

Well, that sucks. I certainly feel bad for that family. (Although...$1,400?!? That's 2,800 Smurfberries! Think about what kind of village you could build with that! I can't even bring myself to spend $5 on 50 Smurfberries, even though it would save me weeks, if not months, of game play.)

But let's hope people keep things in perspective, and parents and public interest groups don't start suggesting the need for all sorts of silly rules and regulations to prevent this from happening more frequently.

But the practice is troubling parents and public interest groups, who say $99 for a wagon of Smurfberries or $19 for a bucket of snowflakes doesn't have any business in a children's game. Though a password is needed to make a purchase, critics say that the safeguards aren't strong enough and that there are loopholes.

"Parents need to know that the promotion of games and the delivery mechanism for them are deceptively cheap," said Jim Styer, president of Common Sense Media, a public advocacy group for online content for children. "But basically people are trying to make money off these apps, which is a huge problem, and only going to get bigger because mobile apps are the new platform for kids."

Fuck!

Don't cave, Apple! The economy's doing better! Families can afford to have their kids blow $1,400 on an iPhone game! (Lest you think I'm being completely heartless, the article goes on to say that when the parents complained to Apple, they refunded the money. So everything's fine. But this is what separates me from Steve Jobs. I would have just emailed the family a picture of me smoking a $1,400 cigar.)

What really gets me, though, is that the parents admit that they gave their kid--not the one who actually spent all the money, but her older sister--their iTunes password. Are you kidding me? If I had a kid, I'd let her play with matches before I let her play around with iTunes. That shit gets expensive.

The biggest fear, of course, is that if these complaints catch on and Apple gets scared or Congress gets involved or whatever, companies will face too many hurdles when it comes to in-app purchases, and they won't even bother making the game in the first place. So while it's tragic that there are kids out there who don't know the difference between real money and virtual money, why should adults like me suffer? Adults who, okay, yes, probably should be doing stuff other than playing a game called Smurfs' Village, but that's neither here nor there.

Ultimately, it comes down to freedom. Apple's freedom to make money, my freedom to play a game, indeed, everyone's freedom...except for the Smurfs, who, as I write this, are about to finish up a crop of Brussels Sprouts, and will next immediately be put to work on growing some Golden Potatoes. They don't need freedom.

Super Bowl Commercial Scorecard

Motorolla: A+ Superb commercial. Maybe one of the best I've ever seen. I'd still rather have an iPad, though.

Volkswagon ("The Force"): A+ If I ever have a kid, I'm going to buy him a Darth Vader costume and never let him take it off.

Audi: A+ "Lancaster, no! It's a trap!" "Nonsense, my father owned one," had me laughing. The Kenny G cameo had me guffawing.

NFL: A It actually took me a second to realize that all the NFL gear was CGI-ed. The fact that they (mostly) used geographically appropriate team apparel instead of just randomly assigning teams to characters, was a nice touch.

Chrysler: A- It almost seems like Eminem's threatening to beat you up if you don't buy American. But otherwise, it's a great ad, actually managing to make Detroit look like a nice place.

LivingSocial: A-

Coca-Cola ("Border"): B+

Mercedes-Benz: B+

Cadillac: B+

Lipton Brisk: B+ You can say "damn" in commercials now? Huh. Great night for Eminem, both the real and clay versions.

Doritos ("House Sitting"): B+ Usually, you can see the punchline of Super Bowl ads coming a mile away, but this one was a great surprise.

Careerbuilder: B+ Monkeys in suits! I love these ads. Careerbuilder never should have stopped making them.

Kia: B Every year, there's at least one commercial that seems to have been written while on drugs.

Hyundai ("Anachronistic City"): B

Coca-Cola ("Siege"): B

BMW ("X3"): B

Bud Light ("Product Placement"): B The only beer commercial I even sort of liked. Remember when beer commercials were the best non-football part of the Super Bowl?

Cars.com ("Go First"): B

HomeAway: B

CarMax ("Gas Station"): B

CarMax ("Kid In A Candy Store"): B

Chevrolet ("Volt Discovery"): B-

Pepsi ("Love Hurts"): B- I'm not saying it's the height of comedy, but contrary to the reaction on Twitter, it's certainly not racist, either.

Bridgestone: B-

Chevrolet ("Cruze Status"): B- Does the world need vehicle/Facebook integration? Of course not. But it was still adorable.

BMW ("Diesel"): B-

Chevrolet: B-

Sony Ericsson: C+ If I were a kid, I would have had nightmares about those thumbs last night.

Teleflora: C+

Sketchers: C+ Okay, look, is it art? No. But there are worse ways to sell your product than a sweaty Kim Kardashian.

Bud Light ("Dog Sitter"): C+

Go Daddy ("The New Go Daddy Girl") C+ I hate Go Daddy commercials with a passion, but this one had an amusing (if somewhat revolting) payoff.

Volkswagen ("Black Beetle"): C+

Mars: C+ I would have liked this a lot more if they hadn't already used this concept twice before in commercials, both of which were much better.

Stella Artois: C I also hate it when a commercial features an actor and seems like it's leading up to a punchline, but then turns out to just be an ego-stroke for said actor. Fuck you, Adrian Brody.

Mini: C Seems kind of a long way to go for an anal sex joke.

Doritos ("The Best Part"): C

Bridgestone ("Carma"): C

Chevrolet ("Al's"): C-

Budweiser: C- Perfect example of the prototypical Bud Super Bowl ad. Thin premise. Bad joke. Just good enough to not get anyone fired.

Hyundai ("Deprogramming"): C-

Groupon (Both of them): C- Not a bad concept, but badly executed. I can't bring myself to join in the "How dare they make fun of Tibet!" outrage, though.

Salesforce: D+ I feel a little bad for this company, since they had no way of knowing everyone would be sick of hearing the words "Black Eyed Peas" by the time their commercial aired. And that was before the actual performance.

Bud Light ("Hack Job"): D+ A lot of Bud Light's commercials are based on the premise that men are retarded. This one was especially bad.

Best Buy: D+ After last night's SNL, I really wasn't ready for more Bieber. Bad timing, Best Buy.

Doritos ("Pug Attack"): D

Pepsi ("Torpedo Center"): D It took a long time, but commercials where guys get hit in the balls are no longer funny to me.

Cars.com: D

Pepsi ("First Date"): D-

Go Daddy ("The Contract"): D- Yeah, this is more like what I expect from Go Daddy.

E-Trade: F I hate that fucking baby.

Super Bowl Pick

1-1 last week; 134-132 for the season

Pittsburgh at Green Bay (-2.5): Green Bay

Panel of the Week

From Brightest Day #19:

The Snyder Memo

MEMORANDUM

From: Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro, LLP

To: Daniel M. Snyder

Re: Possible Legal Action Against the Washington City Paper

Mr Snyder:

As you requested, we've been researching your legal options in regards to the Washington City Paper's article entitled "The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder," which you claim is libelous and/or defamatory in nature. After a careful review of both the article and past items written about you by journalist Dave McKenna, we have to be perfectly frank: Our chances of prevailing in court under these circumstances don't look good.

Largely, any potential litigation will be hamstrung by your own admission to us that nothing significant in the article is patently untrue. While there may well indeed be one or two minor factual errors in the article (i.e., McKenna claims that Asians auditioning for a mascot job at Six Flags were told to "act like Charlie Chan," whereas you say that in actuality, they were directed to act like "the funny, bucktoothed Chinaman from Breakfast at Tiffany's"), these will be unlikely to convince a judge as to the merits of our case when the defendant(s) argues for summary judgment.

Further, while investigating the veracity of the items listed in the City Paper, we've discovered that many of them are actually far, far worse than what appeared in print. For example, this excerpt of the article:

"Ewwwww!": How Barbara Hyde, spokeswoman for the American Society for Microbiology, reacted to last year's news that Snyder's vendors were selling beer in the bathrooms. Fans had been alleging that the Redskins were hawking lager in the loo long before a YouTube video surfaced in October 2009. Hyde said that because microbiological bad actors like E. coli hang out in the men's room, beer vendors shouldn't.

Regardless of whether McKenna didn't uncover the fact that the sale of beer in restrooms was directed by you personally in your August 25, 2006 memo entitled "Maximizing Our Revenue Streams No Matter How Many Redskins Fans Have to Die of E. coli" (attached) or he simply felt he'd done enough damage with the article as it was and didn't need to go for the jugular, a lawsuit may well bring many of these unsavory facts to light, not to mention, heretofore completely unreported ones. Recall how much negative publicity you and the team received when the Post reported that the Redskins were suing indigent season ticket holders, and consider how much worse the reaction would be if, in the discovery process, it was revealed that you had smuggled dozens of Haitian orphans into the country after the earthquake, and keep them locked up underneath FedEx Field where, on game day, they're forced to peddle bicycles hooked up to generators in order to provide free electricity for the video monitor.

As to your suggestion that a successful lawsuit could be based simply on the premise that people shouldn't be allowed to criticize the wealthy and powerful in this country, it's a novel legal argument, but not one we feel would have much traction in court. Specifically, the Virginia statute you cited in your letter to us hasn't been relied on in any court in well over a century, and in fact, was mainly used pre-Civil War to allow landowners to beat insubordinate slaves without fear of punishment. Frankly, no one here can figure out why this statute hasn't been repealed, but we strongly suggest, for reasons having to do with public relations just as much as the law, that you not--emphasize, not--attempt to make this the centerpiece of any defamation suit you might bring.

Our best chance, it seems, might well be to rattle our sabers and merely threaten to file a lawsuit unless McKenna is fired. The City Paper's owners have been on shaky financial ground, and could decide that acquiescing to our demands would be cheaper than a long, drawn out litigation battle. The danger here, of course, would be that you would look like a petty, overly-sensitive asshole with a Napoleon complex, and that whatever small amount of goodwill you've improbably developed with the Redskins fan base over the past few months would instantly evaporate, once again making you the undisputed laughingstock of the NFL.

But hey, it's your team.