This Column Intentionally Left Random

It’s been too long, people. Let’s get random . . .

As I predicted in this space in September of 2003 (and you’ll have to take my word on this, or read through your old emails, because at this moment, I can’t link you to 2003 in my archives), and as The Onion presaged last February (ah, yet another instance when I’ve scooped those punks!), the era of the five-blade razor is nearly upon us, as Gillette announced last week that it’s set to release the Fusion, a razor with five blades, a lubricating strip on both the front and back, and “a single blade on the back of the cartridge for shaving sideburns or trimming under the nose.” Five blades! It seems excessive at first, but really, what was Gillette to do? Schick had thrown down the gauntlet with the four-bladed Quattro; could Gillette sit idly by? Of course not. My only beef is that they didn’t take my suggestion for the name -- Quintessence. Fusion’s okay, I guess, but not only does the word “quintessence” invoke the number five (Encarta’s third definition of quintessence is “in ancient and medieval philosophy, the fifth element after earth, air, fire, and water”), but it suggests perfection (the first definition is “the purest or most perfect example of something”), which would suggest, you know, that maybe five blades is enough. But since they’ve gone ahead and called it Fusion, Schick will no doubt feel the need to one-up them. I predict we’ll see the six-bladed Schick in 2006...

New rule: If, when you look down, you can’t see your feet, you can’t wear the Dri-Fit shirt...

I’ve decided that several of the institutions that provide me with financial services are seriously confused. Lately, I’ve been getting statements whose final page reads, “This Page Intentionally Left Blank.” I understand that they’re printing this statement to confirm that my statement ended the page before, that their statements are double-sided, and that they’ve not left out any critical information that might have otherwise gone on the back side of the final page of my statement. But do they understand that by printing “This Page Intentionally Left Blank,” the page is no longer blank? I think that’s oxymoronic. Or maybe just regular moronic...

The Chicago White Sox are suffering, and not just because they’ve watched their 15-game lead in the American League Central (as of August 1) dwindle to a game and a half (as of Thursday night). They’re also losing their minds. As exhibit A, I draw your attention to “Half Way to St. Patrick’s Day,” a promotion the Sox held on September 9th. But wait, you say -- wouldn’t “half way” be September 17th? Well, it would -- but on the 17th, the White Sox were in Minnesota to play the Twins. So, undeterred by the reality of the calendar, they held the promotion on the 9th. And to celebrate the event, as Paul Lukas points out in his subtly brilliant Uni-Watch column on ESPN.com’s page 2, “Some genius in Chicago got the bright idea of turning the White Sox into the Green Sox.” In other words, green hats, green batting helmets and green pinstripes on the uniforms. Which means, adds Lukas, that “the Chisox marketing staff needs a brain transplant and a calendar”...

But wait, there’s more: in researching the White Sox’s questionable wisdom, I uncovered Exhibit B -- the team “motto.” The team’s home page proclaims, “Win. Or Die Trying.” Perhaps I’m just being conservative, but to me this sort of proclamation seems better suited to rappers like 50 Cent, from whose album title, “Get Rich Or Die Tryin’,” the Sox undoubtedly copped their little slogan. I mean, as a rapper, when you’re talking about getting rich, or dying trying, that’s a reasonable proposition -- you’ve got your whole lifetime to try to get rich, and if you don’t, eventually you’ll die, but in the meantime, you can live a pretty decent life. But when you’re a baseball team, the lifespan of the trying, as it were, is a bit shorter -- like every day shorter. In other words, you have the opportunity to win or lose (or, as the case may be, die trying) 162 times a season. And maybe that’s why the White Sox have been in free fall lately -- if you go into every game figuring you’ve either got to win or die trying, eventually the pressure might get to you...

When I was a kid, records in the Guinness Book of World Records seemed not only larger than life -- like the world’s tallest man, who I remember as being 8’11” -- but substantial. Like, if you were in that book, you’d done something significant. Or you were a complete freak of nature. But now the book has lost its luster for me. Perhaps this is because I now realize that Guinness is first and foremost a beer, and not some reputable institute of world record certification. I think it’s also because now it seems that if you really want to get into the book, you can get into the book. For example, last week a guy named Suresh Joachim got in for watching TV. He set the record for longest time spent watching TV after sitting in the lobby of WABC-TV in New York and watching ABC shows “continuously” for 69 hours and 48 minutes. I put “continuously” in quotes because his record was, of course, subject to Guinness’ goofy rules, which, according to the article I read on CNN.com, “allow for a 5-minute break every hour and a 15-minute break every 8 hours. The viewer must otherwise be constantly looking at the screen.” I’m just imagining the Guinness staff meeting at which rules for entry to the book are considered. “Okay, okay, we need some rules for this guy who wants to get in for watching TV,” says one guy, four pints of Guinness already in him by 10 am, his lips tingling. “Is anybody opposed to making him have to sit there in a puddle of his own urine?” Actually, I think the hardest part is that he had to watch 69 consecutive hours of ABC. But my favorite part of the story was the closing line of the article, which said that “Joachim . . . now holds more than 16 Guinness records, including the longest duration balancing on one foot (76 hours, 40 minutes) and bowling for 100 hours. He does it, he says, to raise awareness of suffering children.” Boy, did I feel stupid after I read that. I mean, you probably saw the direct connection between 69 consecutive hours of watching TV and the plight of suffering children, but I totally missed it...