BPloG

2006-06-07T13:01:00.000-04:00

Just had to point this out to everyone. I am far from a Lou Dobbs fan, and his recent posts on CNN.com, an otherwise occasionally reputable news site, would fit more appropriately on Jerry's erstwhile "rants" page. Dobbs has gone crazy, clearly, but he has hit the nail on the head here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html

Bringing up a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage when you know it is going to fail, and in light of all the other problems we face right now, is astounding. I honestly believe that most people (liberal and conservative) will see this for what it is.

Incidentally, this is not the first time Congress has taken up stupid issues and earned my ire as a result. I guess some things never change.

Have you ever noticed . . . ?

2006-02-09T13:47:00.000-05:00

As some or all of you may know, my friend J.L. (from law school) is a budding stand-up comic; he work's in the Bronx DA's office during the day, an moonlights as a stand-up comic in the evenings, when he can book a gig. Last night he was booked for a 9:00 p.m. show at Stand Up NY, on 78th and Broadway. The way these things work is that when you are booked to perform, you are expected to bring a certain number of guests (i.e. 6, 8 or 10 people make a reservation, pay the cover, and buy two drinks on account of a particular performer). Given the need for audience members, Meaghan and I try and go support J.L. whenever we can. The cover charge last night was $12, with a two drink minimum (I had five, but who's counting).

An additional requirement at past shows has been that you arrive about 30 minutes early. This is to get everyone seated and served before the show starts. Feeling particularly punctual last night, I showed up right at 8:30, with Jimmy (another friend from law school), and Meg met us a few minutes later. We were, literally, the first people there and were therefore sat right at the front. Meg could sit her drink on the stage, and any one of us could have reached out and tapped any of the comics on the leg. This is important for the story just so you understand how close we were to the performers.

Shortly after 9:00p a guy came on stage to MC, and did about 5-10 minutes of average jokes. Nothing great. He brought up the first comic, some guy from NJ, and he was quite good. Lots of NYC jokes, Jersey jokes, and just overall a good time. He performed for about 10 minutes.
When NJ comic guy was done, the host came back up and did about 2 more minutes of lame audience-interaction type stuff, but nothing too extraordinary. He then starts to introduce the next comedian, and says, in a very deadpan, nonchalant manner, "you may have seen our next comedian on tv's Seinfeld, or perhaps in the movie Comedian," (pause) -- at this point, I am racking my brain for C-list guys that have been on Seinfeld before . . . maybe it's Mickey the midget, or maybe it's Jackie the lawyer, etc. . . . but then the host goes, still in this very nonchalant fashion, "Ladies and gentlemen please give a warm welcome to Mr. Jerry Seinfeld."

I turn around, and here comes Jerry Seinfeld walking up to the stage. The place went absolutely nuts. I went nuts. I think we were in shock. There couldn't have been more than 40 people there, max, but it sounded like 440. We were sitting within two or three feet of him, and he proceeded to do a 20-25 minute set, all new stuff (or at least nothing I had ever heard before). He absolutely killed (that's industry talk for "he was very funny").

He didn’t interact with the audience too much (other than to rip on one guy who tried to make a joke from the show about Del Boca Vista), but just did an array of Seinfeld-esque humor. It was literally like sitting in the audience from the opening of the show . . . absolutely amazing. I won't even try to recount any of his jokes in writing here . . . he did a bit about being a parent, what it's like to be a dad, a long thing about trash and how everything is, eventually, destined to be trash, etc. Like I say, I'm not going to try and re-tell the jokes, but they were very, very funny. The place went nuts again when he left . . . and the rest of the evening, while actually a pretty good lineup, of course paled in comparison to his performance.

In short, I had front row seats to a live Jerry Seinfeld show for $12. Sweet.

just a little somethin' to break the monotony of all that hardcore dance that has gotten to be Alito bit out of control . . .

2006-01-11T11:57:00.000-05:00

I'm as liberal as they come (well, no I'm not), or at least lean left on a number of issues, but the Democratic-led attack on the efforts to confirm Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, half-hearted though they may be, are laughable. Two notes on this, followed by my thoughts:

1. Chuck Schumer once called the American Bar Association the "gold standard" for the evaluation of Supreme Court nominees. Subsequently, on Meet the Press, when Russert pointed out that the ABA had ranked Alito as "highly-qualified" to be on the Supreme Court, or something to that effect, Schumer waffled with some bullshit about, well, yes, the ABA is the gold-standard for two of the three qualifications, but there is this third qualification, and they weren't talking about that when they called him "highly-qualified." Come on.

2. Dick Durbin, in a shameful attempt to tie the wholly unrelated Sago Mine tragedy to the confirmation hearing, has raised questions about Alito's preference for bis business vis-a-vis safety standards. "Even in the area of mine safety, he has ruled in cases in favor of companies and against the workers when it comes to safety and similar issues that were brought before his court. I want to make certain that he comes to the Supreme Court with an open mind," Durbin said.

There is more nonsense, but the bottom line is that the Democrats would question the ability of Thomas Jefferson to interpret the Constitution if Bush had nominated him. I assume no one disagrees with that, so the question becomes whether or not this is appropriate. What is the Senate's "advice and consent" role with respect to Supreme Court nominees? In my mind, it is to make sure the President appoints a competent individual who will faithfully uphold the law. The job is to keep out the Harriet Miers of the world, who were plainly unqualified, and let in the Thurgood Marshalls and the Antonin Scalias. Both are/were mad smart, albeit at polar opposites of the political spectrum. Reasonable people can and do differ over abortion, executive authority, etc. You can't filibuster a nominee just because the conservative president selected a guy with a conservative track record. As John McCain said, elections have consequences.

It is impossible to challenge Alito's qualification, so the Democrats have taken to outcome-determinative questions, and when he (rightly, to avoid a forced recusal) declines to answer as fully as the would like, they call foul. It's ridiculous, and it just sets the stage for the Republicans to do it to our guy at some point down the road.

As far as I am concerned, the advice and consent function should be limited to keeping out people who are intellectually unqualified, and who are radically extreme (don't give me that about Scalia, he isn't radically extreme any more than Stevens or Marshall, you just disagree w/him). The Senate's gate-keeping role at the Supreme Court should be limited to keeping out David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, and that guy who got trapped in the Sago Mine. Other selections of the President, provided they are not extremists in the true sense of the word, or intellectually unqualified, ought to be confirmed.

2005-12-21T11:16:00.000-05:00

Jerry stole this from Joe, and I am stealing it from Jerry:

1. My uncle once: drove all the way to Maine to give a graduation gift to me, and to my girlfriend who he had never met. I thought that was pretty cool.

2. Never in my life: have I been happy to let someone else get the last word.

3. When I was five: I had already been friends with Luke for two years, and Chris for five.

4. High School is: better with girls.

5. My parents are: creatures of habit.

6. I once met: a stranger on an Amtrak train and we drank an entire handle of Captain Morgan's together. His name was Hector, and Meaghan was not amused.

7. There's this girl I know who: stopped eating meat for years because Oprah told her to.

8. Once, at a bar: I ordered a beer, drank it quietly, paid my tab, and left.

9. Last night: I left the office before 6:00 p.m. for the first time in months, and walked home due to the subway strike. If it had been about 10 degrees warmer, this would have been the most enjoyable evening I have had in a while. I am going to start walking to and from work much more often. It takes about 45 minutes, so if you walk at a good clip it can be good exercise, and it's a great way to get geared up for the day, or let your brain unwind from a long day.

10. Next time I go to church: the Giants might be NFC East champs, and I might be a little drunk.

11. When I turn my head left, I see: the entrance to my office.

12. When I turn my head right, I see: that building with the slanted roof, and I can never remember its name.

13. How many days until my birthday? 189.

14. If I was a character written by Shakespeare I'd be: the reason he made it big.

15. By this time next year: I'll be married, and I am very excited about it.

16. A better name for me would be: hard to come by.

17. I have a hard time understanding: why the leadership of the MTA seems so insulated from political retribution for years of mismanagement. Can't we just vote them out of the office? Chris summed up my hatred of the MTA quite well a while back. Let's get these guys out. (Side note: I still think the union is wrong on the strike, and the amount that the MTA had put on the table should have been enough to keep them talking, rather than serve as grounds for a strike).

18. If I ever go back to school I: will get an MBA. Law firms are fine, but even the highest ranking lawyer still answers to the client. I think the leaders of mid- to large-cap corporations have the most exciting jobs, because, for better or worse, you make the ultimate decisions on everything.

19. You know I like you if: you think I am being mean to you; it's b/c I've let my guard down, and I am willing to give you my honest opinion in the hopes that you'll give me yours.

20. If I won an award, the first person I'd thank would be: Meaghan.

21. Take my advice: Arrested Development is the funniest show on television.

22. My ideal breakfast is: eaten in Teaneck with my whole family there.

23. If you visit my hometown: you'll be in Teaneck, NJ. Be sure and check out Bischoff's Ice Cream (sorry Chuck, but this was my answer too) while you are there.

24. Why won't someone: other than Howard Stern and Frank Rich stand up to the FCC.

25. If you spend the night at my house: don't spill anything on the white couch or Meg will kick your ass.

26. I'd stop my wedding: if Meg wasn't there.

27. The world could do without: Bill O'Reilly, Mike Francesa, Tucker Carlson, and anyone else who takes a controversial position publicly nots because it's what they believe, but because it is to their financial benefit to do so. The problem is, the controversy they stir up really affects people (ok, not Francesa, but the other two), who seem to think that the controversy is real, and not just made up to provide theater.

28. I'd rather lick the belly of a cockroach than: . . . this one is weird.

29. Paper clips are more useful than: those corny little plastic v-shaped paper clips, that max out at a capacity of about three pages.

30. If I do anything well, it is: negotiate a bargain.

31. And by the way: now that I've got a little bit more than none, I've learned that money buys convenience, and little else.

Arrested Development

2005-11-14T12:39:00.000-05:00

Fox is trying to cancel the funniest show on television. I was thinking about registering this site this morning, but someone else beat me to the punch.

Stay tuned . . .

Rich against Bush

2005-09-19T10:01:00.000-04:00

I have been struggling to collect and organize my thoughts regarding the federal response to Hurricane Katrina over the past week or so, and found myself getting more and more frustrated at my inability to do so in a coherent and comprehensive fashion.

Thankfully, now I don't need to because Frank Rich has done it for me.

Anyone who is not reading Rich's column in the New York Times every Sunday is missing out. Week in and week out he does a fantastic job of shining a spotlight on the failings of the current administration. I really have nothing more to add to what he has written, other than to repeat one of the quotes from the article, as it sums up what I suspect most dispirited Americans are feeling about politics at the moment:

What comes next? Having turned the page on Mr. Bush, the country hungers for a vision that is something other than either liberal boilerplate or Rovian stagecraft. At this point, merely plain old competence, integrity and heart might do.

Amen.

Under Pressure

2005-09-15T17:07:00.000-04:00

So we are approaching the four month anniversary of my last post, and I figured I had better write something soon or else my account might deactivate or some shit like that.

First of all, to those of you who crap on me for not writing more often, F off (I love that expression . . . I think it is actually more forceful than the otherwise crass "fuck off"). Just be thankful that you have a job and a lifestyle that permits you to jot down your personal thoughts and inane observations on an almost daily basis.

Just kidding (sort of); I appreciate that people want to read each other's random thoughts, and I do try to check everyone else's blog occasionally (it takes exponentially more time to post on one's own blog than to scan a few other people's blogs). A stretch of being very busy at work kept me from writing, but, in fairness, I also just sort of let it slide.

All that out of the way, the other reason I don't write very often is because I don't have too much to say. Before the Mets season started I wrote about them a lot, but now that they have become a constant source of humiliation for me, I really don't want to talk about them. Provided the G-Men continue to play well, I guess I could write more about them. Perhaps I will do so.

I could write about politics, but, much like the Mets, the current climate in politics nauseates me. I've always believe that, notwithstanding significant disagreements with this administration on policy, there were at least competent people running the show. Now I don't even believe that. I mean, Mike Browne, are you fucking kidding me? The guy spent six weeks as an intern for disaster relief for some volunteer fire department in West Bumblefuck Oklahoma and now he runs FEMA? All because Bush used to do blow with a friend of his? Jesus. Who's running the treasury? Some crackhead who used to shine Bush Sr.'s shoes? Are we going to wake up one morning to find out that America is broke because the crackhead went on a binge and spent all the money in the joint checking account? Are we? Seriously, it should scare the shit out of you that the guy running the FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY is a moron, and got his job as a favor. Any chance we might have a FEDERAL EMERGENCY that needs to be MANAGED? Hmmm?

So, you know, politics is out.

What else . . . . arbitrary updates from my life? People seem to like that:

1. Meaghan and I just moved in together. Our landlord (who we have not met, only corresponded with via phone and email) is Carol Potter, who starred on TV's Beverly Hills 90210 as Cindy Walsh.

Ian Ziering does the gutters.

2. IKEA is amazing, and will certainly report increased profits this quarter on me alone.

3. I am just short of my one-year anniversary at work. I still don't know what the fuck I am doing most of the time, but, all in all, I must admit that this first year has not been too bad.

I guess I could also write about other non-political current events. One thing comes to mind, probably because it touches the area of law in which I practice. Delta and Northwest filed for bankruptcy protection yesterday, within 30 minutes of each other, and they say it was a total coincidence. That is some bullshit. Filing for bankruptcy is not liking stopping in at the bank, or dropping off some shit at the cleaners. Delta didn't just stroll down to the Bankruptcy Court to file, and bump in to Northwest, "hey, Delta, how are you?" "Good, good, just filing for bankruptcy protection and seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency financing." "Yeah, yeah, so are we, so are we." "Well, see you later."

Bull.

Everyone and their mom knew that Delta was going to file, and Northwest was MAD dl about the whole thing. I guarantee you they had all their shit ready to go a week ago, and were just waiting to push the button once Delta filed.

Incidentally, not a bad strategy, since now they only get half the press for filing for bankruptcy, when they would have gotten all of it by going first, or waiting a few more months.

Well, those are my random thoughts for the day. I'll try to write a bit more often, and a bit more coherently, for the rest of the year.

The Face of Race in America

2005-05-19T13:58:00.000-04:00

Nice work by MMG recently, commenting on the hyper-sensitivity that has developed around race in this country (and also noting how ridiculous the whole Newsweek fiasco has become).

I want to pick up on one of his points, having to do with Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's reaction to President Vicente Fox's comments about black Americans vis-a-vis Mexican immigrants.

Why is it that every time someone says or does something that tends to offend or denigrate African-Americans, it's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who become the unofficial spokesmen of protest for the community? These guys have never been elected to anything - not for lack of trying - and yet both seem to feel entitled to some sort of ex officio leadership status in their community. Why? What has either done to deserve such status and influence?

Given the checkered and questionable history of both of these two guys, I don't see why either of them is owed an apology, or deserves a meeting, or has any right to speak on behalf of their community any more than I do when someone makes a distasteful Irish or Catholic joke (by the way did you hear the one about the Pope and Racquel Welch . . . forget it).

I think that what's really driving this stuff is that these two are controversial enough - and are so willing to be on television - that they become the go-to guys for the media every time someone does or says something to offend an African-American. It would be boring to listen to Barack Obama or Dennis Courtland Hayes or Julian Bond respond to a question about President Fox's remarks, because thier answers would probably be thoughtful, intelligent, and at least somewhat tempered. Getting a quote from Reverend Al, however, or from Reverend Jackson, will be made for TV, easy to print, and controversial enough to make people pay attention.

Reporters and writers are regular people, and they have to get their quotes or their footage or their draft in to an editor by a deadline. Why track down a thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable leader of the African American community when Al Sharpton will be your one-stop shop for good quotes and good tv footage.

I guess I don't have too much of a point here other than to suggest that it is unfortunate that these two get such a disproportionate share of influence in announcing what the so-called "Black" position on a given issue is going to be.

Spend Money to Make Money

2005-05-03T11:05:00.000-04:00

A somewhat pointless math lesson about why the Mets were wise to sign Beltran and Martinez.

The Mets' season is still relatively young, and the only word that could possibly be used to characterize this team so far is mediocre, but all that said, the Omar Minaya experiment is already proving to be a success. Here's why:

In 2003 and 2004 the Mets were AWFUL. A combined 137-186 for a paltry .423 winning percentage. They finished in last place in 2003, and fourth place in 2004.
Despite opportunities to sign Alex Rodriguez and Vladimir Guerrero to enhance these '03 and '04 teams, the Mets declined to do so, citing financial concerns.
Prior to the 2005 season, however, the Mets disregarded financial concerns and spent large sums on Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran.
The Mets, though far from a bona fide contender right now, are imminently better than the disastrous teams of the last two years. This seems, at least at first glance, to be a direct result of the extra money put in to the team.
The best part, however, is that as a result of the additional money spent on the team, the Mets have possibly increased their chances of adding additional talent in future years.
In 2003 and 2004, the Mets' average attendance at home games was 28,165 and 28,979 respectively.
Through 13 homes games in 2005, however, the Mets home attendance has jumped to 35,046.
Comparing this number to the average for 2003-2004, the Mets attendance has increase by just under 6,500 fans per game.
Given economies of scale, every fan over the first few is basically pure profit for the team. Assume an average ticket price of $25, and another $5 per fan in concessions, and the Mets are generating an additional $195,000 of profit per home game thanks to the increased attendance. If these attendance numbers hold (keep in mind that the 2005 numbers do not yet include the three Yankee games which are already sold out), that's an extra $15,795,000 in profit for the team as a result of the off-season signings.
Moreover, that extra $16 million does not include any increased revenue from merchandising, other sales, etc., which, given the number of Beltran and Martinez jerseys around town, seems significant.
Now, the Mets attendance numbers may not stay so high - fair point. Given the parity that seems to exist in the NL East, however, it is at least plausible that the Mets will be within striking distance of the division title into August. If they are, people will go to Shea.
Also, some may point out that the Mets spent much more than $16 million per year to get Beltran and Martinez. True. But that's not the point. The point is, they were going to sign someone in the offseason, but if it was a mediocre guy who couldn't generate the buzz of the mega-signings, then these enhanced revenues would be absent.
So, the point is this: when people talk about how much the Mets spent this off-season, you have to discount those numbers by the added revenue the team is generating as a result. Clearly, that added revenue is significant, and may justify future large-scale signings so as to make the team even more competitive, and even more of a draw for fans.

Checking in . . .

2005-04-14T10:14:00.000-04:00

It's been weeks since my last post - time flies when you're having fun (and when you are working long hours).

Bouyea Bachelor Party in Baltimore this weekend, as you Bowdoin folks are no doubt aware. What a catastrophe this is going to be. A celebration 10 years in the making. Somebody get the bail money on standby.

After a rough start, the Mets are fighting their way back to respectability. I know there are a lot of strikes against this team, but I wouldn't count them out. If the offense clicks, there is no limit to how many runs this group can score. Pitching would just need to be decent (which, so far, it has been).

And, for the record, I still have not found myself grieving for the Pope. Perhaps that makes me a bad Catholic (though there are probably a host of items that make me a bad Catholic (get it? host? Sorry)), but I just cannot bring myself to be too sad about the death of a guy who was very old, very much ready to die (if you believe the reports), and by all accounts had a rich and full life (even despite the lack of the obvious). I'm not going to get started here on whether he was a good guy or a bad guy (though I lean towards good, just old-fashioned), but suffice it to say I think that the tears and prostration that we see from some people on television may have more to do with their own issues and ostentatiousness then with any real sorrow at the Pope's passing.

That's just my opinion - no offense to anyone who was truly sad. In fact, I'd be interested in hearing about it if you were, because it's difficult for me to understand.

A spectacular week for the U.S. Congress

2005-03-21T16:17:00.000-05:00

I really regret that I don't have more time to write about this, but I had to put something down about how poorly we have been served by our elected officials this past week. In one week, the U.S. Congress has featued prominently in the news twice:

First, the Congress subpoenas baseball players to testify about steroids in the game. Does anyone care about this? Ok, maybe some people think it's bogus that these guys were juicing (it is cheating) - but an investigation by the United States Congress?!?!?!?! If this doesn't piss you off, nothing will. Never mind that the Bush administration was again chastised last week by a federal court for holding detainees without regard to their constitutional rights, never mind that troops in Iraq still have less armor than they need, never mind that Israel is already threatening a very tenuous peace in the region with new contruction, never mind 40 million Americans without health care. Where are the hearings on these issues? Any time soon? No, baseball is front and center, because a handful of guys took an illegal substance to help them hit a ball.

Next, as if concerned about fading from the public spotlight for 20 minutes, the Republican dominated House passes a bill ordering a federal judge to re-consider the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Putting aside, for now, the Constitutional implications of such a move (for the uninitiated: separation of powers, might be a little thorny for Congress to start ordering the courts around with person-specific legislation), my favorite part is that this is a Republican Congress that rages about states-rights. Now, a dispute has been exhausted at the state level, and the Congress, unhappy with the result, has inserted itself in the debate. Imagine if a court in NJ ruled that an abortion could not be performed on a pregnant woman who was in a PVS. Now imagine a Democratic-controlled U.S. legislature effectively overturns that decision, ordering a reconsideration of the case so as to open the possibility that the abortion can proceed. Rick Santorum's head would explode.

Too busy to write more - will try to supplement this later with more facts and less ranting.

In good company

2005-03-02T11:56:00.000-05:00

From the text of yesterday's Supreme Court decision.

"As respondent and a number of amici emphasize, Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committedby juveniles under 18."

Any time you are mentioned as the only country to do something other than Somalia, a second look is certainly in order.

Talk about teenage angst . . .

2005-03-02T09:47:00.000-05:00

(It's been awhile since my last post, so apologies to all three of you who have missed me).

In a 5-4 decision yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is inconsistent with the Constitution to execute criminals for crimes committed when they were 16 or 17 (it had already been established that anyone younger than 16 at the time of their crime could not be executed). This is a pretty solid victory for the so-called abolitionists, but what astounds me is how contentious of an issue this and other death penalty cases like it have become.

The Supreme Court hasn't heard a successful challenge to capital punishment generally in 33 years, and then, even when they did rule that the practice had to be stopped, it was reinstated 4 years later. Capital punishment has been a lawful way to punish criminals for 29 consecutive years, and, absent the break from 1972-1976, has been a part of criminal corrections in this country since before the Revolutionary War. In other words, absent a major shift on the court and in legislatures in the red states, the death penaltyis not going anywhere for a while.

So what is all the fuss about? Teenagers and the mentally retarded. That's right. There are people who are so pro-death penalty, that they flip out every time the court tells them that they can't execute someoune a) under the age of 19 when they committed a crime, or b) who was MENTALLY RETARDED when they committed a crime.

Even though I am opposed to the death penalty across the board, I can at least acknowledge that there is a defensible argument for the practice when a sane, intelligent, rational person commits a heinous crime (for example: did anyone lose any sleep at all when they offed Timothy McVeigh? Of course not). But I think it detracts credibility from the argument when these same pro-death penalty people are so blindly in favor of the practice, that they take the "give an inch, take a mile" approach to the debate. They are so concerned about the practice being banned generally, that they won't budge on even the (in my view) common sense issues.

I think a better approach might be to recognizethe flaws in the system (we execute people who are less culpable due to a mental deficiency, poor people get shitty representation, black on white violence is disproportionately sanctioned by the death penalty, etc.), and then argue that those can be fixed, and that the death penalty ought to be reserved for the worst of the worst, the people whose execution cannot be subjected to any procedural or fairness attack.

Again, I am opposed to the practice regardless, as it seems pointless and antiquated, but once you remove all of the nitpicky stuff that abolitionists have in their arsenal, it becomes more difficult to make the case generally against the death penalty.

A Modest Proposal

2005-02-07T11:55:00.000-05:00

Here is a stat to consider (as far as I know, no one has made much of this yet, but I think it is somewhat interesting):

Counting last night's Super Bowl, there have been 39 Super Bowls in NFL history. Three of those 39 have been played in February (2002, 2004, and 2005). The other 36 Super Bowls have been played in January. Of the three played in February, the Patriots have won every single one of them.

Random, yes, but it is related to an interesting topic of discussion. How amazing would it be to have the day after the Super Bowl off from work? The game could start a little later, people could drink/socialize more and longer, and then have the following day to recover. I know I would have stayed out a lot later, and done a lot more partying, if I had today off from work.

There are two ways that this could be done.

The first option is probably the easiest - just move the game to Saturday. Whatever weekend is currently scheduled for the Super Bowl, just play the game on Saturday night, instead of Sunday. Backing the game up 24 hours shouldn't matter too much to the teams, as they have a bye week before the game anyway. The networks would love it, as the ratings for the second half of the game would skyrocket (fewer people going to bed at halftime because they have to get up the next morning), and bars would love it, as more people would go out that night than perhaps any night of the year. I really see no down side to this. Everybody wins.

The other alternative is for those people who insist that Super Bowl Sunday is part of the tradition, and that the game would lose something if played on a Saturday. Delay the start of the season one week, add another bye week to the regular season schedule, and then the Super Bowl would end up being played the Sunday of President's Week, when almost everyone has that Monday off from work. I don't like this plan nearly as much, as it drags out the season more than is necessary, but it may placate the purists while at the same time achieving the desired result (i.e. I get to sleep until noon the day after the game).

I have thought about this for a while, and Meg and I have discussed it at length, and I really cannot see any reason why anyone would be opposed to the Super Bowl being played on Saturday night, or, alternatively, the night before President's Day. I am very interested to hear what other people have to say about this, and whether I am missing something here.

Super Bowl Predictions

2005-02-04T14:13:00.000-05:00

Here are my predictions for the Super Bowl. The big one is obviously the winner, but I threw a few others in here as well, just for kicks.

1. Coin Toss:

It is amazing how much money gets bet on this every year. I pick heads. I have no idea why.

2. McNabb's first INT/TD:

McNabb will throw an INTERCEPTION before he throws a touchdown.

3. Brady first INT/TD:

Brady will throw a TOUCHDOWN before he throws an interception.

4. MVP:

Corey Dillon will take the MVP award, with at least 1 TD and at least 100 yards rushing.

5. Total points:

47

6. Score at the end of each quarter:

1st 2nd 3rd 4th F
NE 7 10 3 7 27
PHI 3 7 10 0 20

7. Winner:

Well I've just given away my pick for the winner, and this should really come as no surprise since a) I am routing for the Patriots, and b) every non-Eagle fan in the country thinks the Pats are going to win this game. Here's why:

Belichick. He's already dismantled two teams that everyone thought were better since the New Year. Imagine what they're cooking up for a team that is clearly not as good as the Steelers or the Colts.

Brady. Been there. Done that. This is becoming old hat for him, and I think that it is completely reasonable to assume that experience equates to comfort and confidence. McNabb may be searching for both in the moments leading up to the opening drive.

Defense. On paper, the Patriots have only a slight edge here. Both teams allowed exactly 16.3 points per game this year, Philly allowed 319 yards per game of offense to the Patriots' 310, and the Pats had 30 takeaways compared to Philly's 27. Despite the similarities, I still like New England's defense a whole lot more than Philly's. First, the Pats played in what was hands down a tougher conference - I want no argument on that from the Eagle fans. Second, the Pats just have more big play guys than the Eagles (I know, I know, Brian Dawkins is a monster, and Jevon Kearse is the freak); Bruschi, Harrison, and now Seymour . . . even Troy Brown makes big plays on defense. I think they can run circles around the Eagles, get McNabb rattled, and then start forcing turnovers.

Corey Dillon. The x-factor in this game, Dillon has been waiting his entire career for this kind of a shot. He's my pick for MVP of the game, and I think he can single-handedly win this thing for the Pats. There are lots of guys who have waited their whole career to get to the Super Bowl, but none who were so good, for so long, on a team that was so bad. Dillon is still only nine months removed from being one of the best backs in the game on one of the worst teams in the game . . . what an amazing career-changing move that trade was for him. Look for him to have a fantastic night on Sunday.

Gettin' some 'ligion

2005-02-03T17:31:00.000-05:00

I don't have time to put up a lengthy post about this, but there are two lines from a CNN.com article that I had to put up here. Maybe I am taking them out of context, but come on people:

"Tolerance itself can be a very dangerous word," said the Rev. Terry Fox, a Southern Baptist pastor in Wichita, Kansas.

"For years, PBS has been slipping pro-homosexual messages into its programming," said Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute.

(There's a slipping joke in here somewhere that I am not going anywhere near).

These are perhaps two of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read in my entire life.

The article is here, if you want to read it.

Cy Pedro?

2005-01-27T10:59:00.000-05:00

For all the talk of Pedro being past his prime, at least one reputable baseball analyst thinks he will compete for a Cy Young award - Mets haven't had one of those in a while.

Mets Update

2005-01-26T15:58:00.000-05:00

Mets lost out on Carlos Delgado. Too bad, especially since he is headed to division rival Florida (so we get to pitch to him 70-75 times this year).

The Mets are still pretty likely to add one more big bat before the start of the season, and the two names getting tossed around almost exclusively are Sammy Sosa and Magglio Ordonez.

If they get Sosa, it will be through a trade, most likely for Cliff Floyd. Sosa is owed $35 million over the next two years (his $18 million club option for 2006 vests upon a trade), while Floys is owed $13 million. Straight up, then, it would cost the Mets $22 million to bring him to Shea. The Cubs will kick in something, and even if it's as little as $6 million ($5 - $10 million is the speculation of what it will cost them to move him), the net cost to the Mets to bring Sosa on board for two years is $16 million. I know it's a lot of money, but I think it's worth the upgrade over Floyd. Floyd will never hit more than 30 home runs. Sosa could hit 50. Floyd will never drive in more than 100 runs. Sosa could knock in 140. Floyd will never be healthy for more than 130 games. Sosa could play 160. You get the point. I know Sosa is a head case, and he might be done, but he has a huge upside (he's had ONE bad year, and hit 35 hr in that so-called bad year). He strikes out too much also, but with some bats behind him (Piazza, Wright), and runners on ahead of him (Reyes, Matsui, Beltran) he should see some decent pitches.

If they get Ordonez, it will be through a signing, probably for no more than a year at about $8-$10 million. Ordonez was hurt last year, otherwise he'd be commanding a huge contract (probably somewhere between Delgado and Beltran). If he's healthy, he is an absolute steal at that money. The guy consistently puts up numbers in excess of .300, 30, 100, and would be a perfect fit for the cleanup spot the way the lineup is currently shaping up. Only problem is that by signing him you end up eating either Floyd or Cameron's contract, so it is unlikely they pull this off without unloading one of those two guys first. If we can get Ordonez, Detroit will need an outfielder, and would probably take Floyd or Cameron in return for a bullpen arm.

I think the dark horse here is still Manny Ramirez. His very sour relationship with the 2003 Red Sox improved dramatically in 2004, but he still has four years left on an 8-year, $160 million contract. HIs salary wasn't paid pro rata over the first four years, so he is owed something like $95 million over the next four years. The Mets are one of a very few teams that could take on anything even close to this kind of contract, and the Sox could probably chip in less if they try to trade Manny now (while he still has some value), as opposed to say, two years from now. If the Mets sent Floyd to the Sox in exchange for Ramirez and say $18 million (over four years), they'd be picking up a net of about $60 million in salary. That's almost what they were doing with Delgado, and they get a guy who is a bona fide MVP threat every year.

This is by no means a likely scenario, but I still think it's possible. The Mets would have to overpay for Ramirez, but he would be a heck of a draw in NYC, and ratings would be that much higher. Imagine a Mets lineup that looks like this:

Reyes, ss
Matsui, 2b
Beltran, cf
Ramirez/Sosa/Ordonez, lf
Piazza, 1b
Wright, 3b
Cameron, rf
Mientkiewicz, 1b

Wow.

Conference Championship Picks

2005-01-23T14:34:00.000-05:00

Atlanta (+5) at Philadelphia, 3:00p.

As much as I want the Eagles to choke for an amazing fourth year in a row, I can't see the Falcons winning this game. Atlanta is definitely a solid team, but they have only gotten this far by being a very good team in a very awful conference.

That said, Michael Vick is one of the only players in the NFL (Favre) who can single-handedly win a football game. He could do some amazing shit late to pull off the upset, but I don't see it happening. I might take the Falcons on points, but the Eages will win the game.

New England at Pittsburgh (+3), 6:30p.

New England fans should be very nervous that they are getting points on the road in a conference championship game - they are so much better playing as an underdog. That said, I still think they pull this out. The defense looked historic last week, and as good as Pittsburgh's run game is, they are still a one-dimensional team on offense (Roethlisberger has thrown more interceptions, 9, than touchdowns, 8, in his last eight games). The Pats can stop the run and force the Steelers to throw, which will lead to turnovers.

Also keep in mind that the Patriots were missing Corey Dillon when Pittsburgh beat them on Halloween.

Take the Pats, even with the points.

Et tutu, Sponge Bob?

2005-01-21T13:42:00.000-05:00

I really don't even know where to start with this one; apparently, someone with some conservative religious group believes that Sponge Bob is promoting tolerance of gay people, and they are pissed off about it.

Sponge Bob and some other cartoon characters appear in a music video to promote tolerance, and this group is all bent out of shape because apparently one of the things kids are supposed to tolerate - gasp - is gay Americans.

First, from what I read, there is no reference to homosexuality in the video at all. In large part, this is completely fabricated out of thin air.

Second, and much more importantly, this flap really exposes the "religious right" for what they are - bigots who simply find homosexuality gross, and therefore want to chastise anyone who is gay or supportive of gays.

This may seem obvious to a lot of us on the left, but I actually think it bears discussion. You see, every time I debate this issue with so-called religious people (priests, for the most part), the argument is always the same: "God teaches us to love and tolerate each other no matter what, but he also teaches that physical acts associated with homosexuality are sinful." Or something like that. In other words, to be a moral person, you need to refrain from homosexual acts, but you also need to tolerate and respect other people. God does not want us to be mean to gays, the argument goes, but rather convince them that their lifestyle is not in accordance with his teachings, and counsel them to refrain from such behavior.

This Sponge Bob thing, though, goes another step. No one is suggesting that the video promotes homosexuality per se, they allege that it promotes tolerance for homosexuality. So now we can't even tolerate gay people? To follow God in these people's eyes means not only can a gay person not get married, not only can a gay person not have sex, they can't even be tolerated anymore. What are we supposed to do, run away every time a gay person enters the room. Throw shit at them? What?

It is so staggering to me that this kind of thing gets any coverage. Christ, even President Bush (no friend to gay Americans) says that you have to be kind and respectful to people of all sexual orientations. But watch, this will follow Sponge Bob forever (poor guy), he is always going to be remembered for being the gay cartoon character. Remember the teletubbies? Everyone thought the purple one was gay - that shit was off the air in six months.

It is unbelievable how much sway this small group of Americans has over the rest of us; I wish some executive at whatever TV studio will simply say "fuck them; Sponge Bob isn't gay or straight - he's a fucking sponge!!!" But they won't; and the reason they won't is because these people (religious right) are organized. They write letters, they get on TV, they flood the internet, etc. There aren't that many of them, but they have mastered the art of getting their message out - and they can take anyone down. Some television exec facing a boycott of his station and all the products advertised on will yank Sponge Bob in a heartbeat to placate these people - and you would too, if your bottom line depended on it.

Unbelievable. Sponge Bob. Sponge Bob Square Pants!!! Leave him alone!!! There are cartoon characters with guns and weapons so advanced that we can't even manufacture them yet in this country, but no one is trying to get them off the air. No, we go after poor old Sponge Bob. Just for tolerating people.

2005-01-20T14:11:00.000-05:00

There is a very interesting op-ed in today's times about the human reaction to adversity, and about how we are usually better able to cope with unpleasant situations that we might predict prior to said unpleasantness.

The article is here. My comments that follow may not make a ton of sense if you don't read the article first.

Most interesting, I thought, was the line about those few people who do not have this ability (Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi are referenced in the article). Of them, the author suggests that, "[m]any of the heroes and redeemers we most admire were unhappy people who found it impossible to change how they felt about the world - which left them no choice but to change the world itself.

This is a very unique way of reflecting upon the lives of people who have had the largest impact on world history. It's also a thinly veiled criticism of the rest of us for being so willing to, to paraphrase Bobby McFerrin, not worry, and instead be happy.

I am not convinced that Professor Gilbert (the author) is correct in his supposition that people who are generally more unhappy are more likely to effect some measure of social change, but, assuming that he has a valid point, I wondered where I would place on such a scale.

I must admit that I probably fall on the "happy-and-willing-to-just-live-my-life" side of things, and maybe this is not such a good thing. I had always taken what I perceive to be my upbeat nature and counted it as an asset; Professor Gilbert seems to suggest a recharacterization, and a consideration that such a character trait may be a liability, at least in part.

To take his primary example, the 2004 election, I was as disappointed as any like-minded Democrat that Bush won, but I fall squarely within his description of how the majority of people have reacted: got a little bummed out, noted that we almost won, and thought "fuck it; I'll take the tax cut guilt-free." Does this mean that I am not outraged enough? Maybe.

Either way, it's an interesting thing to consider, that maybe we are too happy, and too willing to find the silver lining on a bad situation.

Then again, I think he discounts the positives of this human disposition, but perhaps that opinion is precisely the problem . . . .

Donde esta the BPloG?

2005-01-14T15:51:00.000-05:00

To my loyal readers (both of you). I have been very busy at work lately, so I have not been able to update the BPloG with any frequency. I'll try to do better.

For now, get ready for a great NFL weekend. Here are my picks:

1. NY Jets (+9) at Pittsburgh, Saturday, 4:30 ET

The Jets will make a game of this, I really have no doubt about that, but with Chad and John Abraham both somewhere under 100%, I don't see how the Jets win this one. The Steelers running game is amazing, and Roethlisberger is good enough to keep their passing game a threat. Take the Jets on the points, but the Steelers will win the game.

2. Indianapolis (+1.5) at New England, Sunday, 4:30 ET

If the Colts are ever going to win a playoff game in New England this looks like the year they are going to do it, but I still think the Pats find a way to pull this out. The Ty Law injury would make me very nervous as a Pats fan, but Bill Bellichek is a far superior coach to Tony Dungy, and I honestly think he just finds a way to do it. He' s also in Manning's head right now, too.

Interestingly, a little gamesmanship on the part of the Pats, despite a major storm in New England, the field at Foxboro was left uncovered for the last few days.

Take the Pats to win as they always do - a late drive setting up a Vinatieri FG.

3. St. Louis (+7) at Atlanta, Saturday, 8:00 ET

Does anyone care about this game? Will anyone be watching? I won't. Falcons in a walk. Michael Vick was born to run all over this defense.

4. Minnesota (+8.5) at Philadelphia, Sunday, 1:00 ET

This is my upset special. The Vikings looked so good last week against a Packers team that I still insist is a lot better than they played. The Vikings are locked in: Culpepper looks comfortable, they have a zillion running backs to choose from, and Randy Moss is Randy Moss. Philly is without T.O., and has a pathological inability to win playoff games.

Vikings stun the Eagles, and it won't even be too close.

Congrats

2005-01-05T10:45:00.000-05:00

Even though Jerry and Max already beat me to it, congratulations are in order to my brother Matt and his fiancee Sarah. After a brief courtship, they were engaged to be married on December 30, 2004. Way to go kids!

2005-01-04T14:30:00.000-05:00

With news leaking that the Mets have offered Carlos Beltran $100M to play centerfiled at Shea for the next six or seven years, I have become giddy reading every column I can find that suggests they have a chance to land him, and disregarding those that say otherwise.

Here, in no particular order, are the reasons that the Mets will actually sign Carlos Beltran. (For the record, I have no opinion - yet - on whether they actually should spend this much for Beltran. There is a compelling argument that he is not that amazing, and that he is cashing in on the fact that there are no other superstars available this year. It is also worth noting that a comparison of Vlad Guerrero's numbers to Beltran's numbers is not encouraging. But hey, it's not my money. Either way, I'm just arguing that - rightly or wrongly - they will sign him).

1. Yankees. Obviously this is the biggest obstacle to the Mets getting a deal with Beltran. The Yankees can supposedly offer two things that the Mets can't: more money, and a chance to play on a contender every year. As for money, that may not actually be the case. Once the Yanks sign Randy Johnson at somewhere in the neighborhood of $17 million per year, they will have a payroll of over $200 million a year. This is an astounding amount of money, and if the Mets can cough up somewhere close to $17 million/year for Beltran, it is reasonable to suspect that the Yanks may not be willing to crack $220 million in payroll, especially given that having the highest payroll clearly does not assure them a World Series berth. See, e.g., Damon, Johnny.

2. Franchise player. This one is a bit of a stretch, and if the Mets lose out to the Yanks in going after Beltran it will probably be because the Yanks are simply a better team right now who are almost guaranteed to make the postseason. In trying to woo Beltran, however, the Mets have done something rather creative: they have played up their recent failures, and attempted to bait him with the idea of being the savior, of being their franchise player. Come to Shea, Carlos, and get coronated as a latter-day Derek Jeter for the rest of us.

I'm not sure this will work, but I think it was a brilliant move by Minaya, and I think it justifies the criticism that Steve Phillips took over the years. Phillips would have laughed at what Boras was offering, signed a few aging veterans, and moved on to a mediocre 2005 season. Minaya sees the one thing the Mets can offer that the Yanks can't - a chance to be the biggest star on the team - and uses it to his advantage.

In the Bronx, Beltran would sit second-chair to Jeter (and his marketing and merchandising abilities will bear that out; how many commercials have you seen A-Rod in lately? As many as Jeter? I don't think so). At Shea, Beltran would enjoy the same popularity and mega-star status that Mike Piazza enjoyed during his career years of 1999 and 2000. During the Subway Series in 2000, there were two mega-stars in New York: Piazza and Jeter. Steinbrenner can't offer Beltran the chance to be Jeter, but Minaya can let him take over for Piazza.

3. The Mets TV Network. The Mets are in the process of developing their own television network (think YES network with a Mets logo on it; well call it MES (Mets-YES)) to broadcast games and sports content; the network is slated to go live for the start of the 2006 season. Apparently, the price of advertising on the station will be set, at least initially, on the ratings that the Mets' broadcasts receive this year. Put simply, if the Mets suck and no one watches, commercials on MES will be cheap; if they are fun to watch and people tune in, commercials on MES are expensive, and Wilpon makes more money. Getting Pedro was definitely a start, but signing Beltran would put the top two free agents of the off-season at Shea, and would virtually guarantee the team a sufficient amount of hype until at least the All-Star break.

Minaya has clearly figured this out, and he has played Wilpon masterfully (so far). Perhaps it isn't even fair to say that Wilpon has been "played," because as a shrewd businessman, he may have known all along that this was the year to make a splash financially; this would certainly explain the cost-cutting measures of the last few years. Either way, it is fair to say that the owner and the GM recognize that if spending money is ever a good strategy in the attempt to make money, this is the year to do it. Bottom line: the Mets ownership always has a financial stake in the team being competitive, but more than that, this year, the ownership has an enormous financial stake in the team being watched, regardless of how good they are. No one can say if Beltran will deliver on the former, but he will certainly deliver on the latter.

4. Fan Relations. I think this is going to become the biggest element in the Mets decision to make this deal, it just hasn't surfaced yet. The Mets have had a slew of awful signings (Mo Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Mo Vaughn and Mo Vaughn, to name a few) as well as a host of missed opportunities to get marquee guys at Shea (Alex Rodriguez and Vladimir Guerrero most recently). While no one really thought that the Mets were players for Beltran until about two or three weeks ago, the story has clearly broken that they are in the hunt (if not the front-runner, at least for the moment). To get this close to another mega-star only to lose out to the Yankees or some other team again would be a media disaster. It would have the exact opposite effect on the team that signing him would have - it would convince people that these are the same old Mets, content to sign a guy whose better days are behind him (Carlos Delgado), instead of paying the extra money for a guy whose better days are ahead of him.

How will anyone be able to get fired up about signing Delgado for $11 or $12 million per year if they decline to get Beltran for $16 or $17 million a year?

5. Los Metropolitanos. Rightly or wrongly, Minaya wants to add more of a Latin presence on this team. He pretty much came right out and said that signing Pedro would make the Mets a more visible team in Latin countries. Signing Beltran would certainly engage the Latin base of fans both in Queens and abroad, and couldn't hurt in the effort to recruit younger Latin players in the future. This isn't a deal breaker, but Minaya has demonstrated some cache with Latin free agents already (Pedro), and may be able to use this to his advantage in the attempt to lure Beltran.

Bienvenidos a Shea, Carlos!

Distraction

2004-12-29T11:53:00.000-05:00

Things a little slow at the office? Not anymore:

Try this quarterback challenge from Maxim. I am up to 515 - want to break 750 before the end of the day.

2004 in Questions

2004-12-28T09:59:00.000-05:00

Ripped this off from Joe . . . here are my answers:

These are 39 questions that are supposed to sum up your year. Takes a while to come up with the best answers.

1. What did you do in 2004 that you'd never done before?
Run a 10K (6.2 mile) and 7.2 mile road race.

2. Did you keep your new year's resolutions, and will you make more for next year?
I've never really made any that stuck. Maybe I will this year, but it could be a little depressing come February when I haven't done whatever I said I was going to do.

3. Did anyone close to you give birth?
Matt Dabney's wife Jenny had her third child - a girl. As Jenny put the joy of having a daughter, "now I can finally put my kid in a dress without Matt getting all pissed off."

4. Did anyone close to you die?
My cat Clancy - he was 13, large, and in charge.

5. What countries did you visit?
Never left the U.S. in 2004.

6. What would you like to have in 2005 that you lacked in 2004?
A credit card with a $0 balance.

7. What dates from 2004 will remain etched upon your memory, and why?
November 2, 2004. That was the day I realized that there are more people in this country who think like George Bush than like me.

8. What was your biggest achievement of the year?
Graduating law school with honors, passing the New York and Massachusetts bar exams, completing a 7.2-mile race that I didn't think I'd be able to finish.

9. What was your biggest failure?
Beginning to allow some friendships with some very solid people to erode for lack (on my part) of keeping in touch.

10. Did you suffer illness or injury?
No.

11. What was the best thing you bought?
Nothing of consequence.

12. Whose behavior merited celebration?
Young Americans in the military who volunteer to serve our country for shit pay and no armor. They buy into the myth of America, which gives me the luxury to talk shit about it.

13. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed?
The American people; hyporcrites in Europe who criticize America for being indifferent about the rest of the world, but who then turn their back on suffering in places like Darfur.

14. Where did most of your money go?
Law school tuition, rent, booze.

15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
Moving out of Washington, D.C. and into New York City.

16. What song will always remind you of 2004?

17. Compared to this time last year, are you:
a) happier or sadder?
b) thinner or fatter?
c) richer or poorer?

Happier, about the same, richer.

18. What do you wish you'd done more of?
Reading - I let myself watch too much TV.

19. What do you wish you'd done less of?
Watch crap television.

20. How will you be spending Christmas?
With family.

21. Did you fall in love in 2004?
Is there a correct cheesy answer to this question when you are in a relationship?

22. How many one-night stands?
None.

23. What was your favorite TV program?
24, followed closely by Curb Your Enthusiasm.

24. Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year?
No.

25. What was the best book you read?
'Round Ireland with a Fridge.

26. What was your greatest musical discovery?
Kazaa

27. What did you want and get?
Passing score on NY and MA bar exams.

28. What did you want and not get?
President Kerry.

29. What was your favorite film of this year?
Farenheit was pretty thought-provoking, but probably not my favorite. I had never seen Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood until this year - that is a hell of a movie.

30. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?
I turned 26 and partied with friends.

31.What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying?
One more blue state.

32. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2004?
Feigned indifference

33. What kept you sane?
Meaghan

34. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?
Howard Dean's ability to say what was on his mind despite the consequences was very refreshing. I also still can't get over that Jeter catch on July 1.

35. What political issue stirred you the most?
The inability of Americans to move away from discrimination against others in both law and practice. We've settled on a new group (gay Americans), but our behavior is depressingly similar over the past 100 years.

36. Who did you miss?
My grandfather; friends from law school and Bowdoin who aren't in NYC.

37. Who was the best new person you met?
The guy I share an office with at work. He is a Mets, Giants, and Knicks fan who likes to drink.

38. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2004.
It's better to be lucky than to be good.

39. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year.
"In my country there is problem . . . "

Google Whacking

2004-12-27T13:59:00.000-05:00

I saw this on the Today show this morning (Imus is on vacation - give me a break).

This is the ultimate time killer at work. Go to Google and try to come up with any two words that will return exactly one hit. It is very difficult to do so (I've been trying for over an hour, and the fewest hits I've gotten is 583).

There is a site devoted to this game, and they set out the rules, etc.

2004-12-23T13:51:00.000-05:00

And when the hell did Maureen Dowd get Dennis Miller disease?

On Rumsfeld: "His disgraceful admission that his condolence letters to the families of soldiers killed in Iraq were signed by machine - "I have directed that in the future I sign each letter," he said in a Strangelovian statement - is redolent of the myopia that has led to the dystopia."

Can't you just hear Miller trying to rhyme myopia with dystopia during some Packers-Seahawks blowout circa 2001?

I think if Maureen Dowd and Mike Francesa were in a room together I might have to take a shot; they are possibly the two most bitter, sarcastic, obnoxious people in the media (real and fake, respectively).

Can you imagine what Dowd would have written about the Republicans if they started crapping on Clinton for using a machine to sign letters? Give me a break.

And who started that whole he-doesn't-sign-the-letters-himself-so-he-is-a-lousy-guy thing? The Swift Boat Veterans for Calligraphy? (hy).

The guy is a disaster, but this strikes me as a pretty innocuous flaw in his tenure as Defense Secretary.

2004-12-23T13:44:00.000-05:00

In case you are enjoying the holidays too much, the gut-wrenching story of Richard Jones should do the trick. A Hank Gathers kind of story if I've ever seen one. Leave it to the Bergen Record's finest to bring you down on the holidays.

Pro-Bowl

2004-12-22T16:30:00.000-05:00

Tikki Barber was selected for his first-ever trip to the Pro Bowl today. Amazing given his very productive years with the Giants, but, regardless, good for him.

My question is this: why in the world do they announce Pro Bowl selections with only two weeks left in the season? I mean, if you are going to be like the NBA, NHL, or MLB and have your all-star game in the middle of the season, then fine, announce them halfway through the season. But the NFL has their all-star game after the season has ended, so why not let guys be measured on a full-season's performance rather than 7/8 of one? What if some guy who just missed goes out and has two awesome weeks?

Seems pointless to me not to wait two more weeks, but whatever, no one cares about the Pro Bowl anyway.

(This was kind of a weak post today --- sorry to my loyal readers. I've got nothing else right now. I'll try to think of something).

Iraqi "Militants"

2004-12-21T13:48:00.000-05:00

Following today's bombing of a mess hall in Mosul, Iraq, the New York Times reported as follows:

"More than 100 bodies have turned up in the city in recent weeks, as the country heads toward elections planned for Jan. 30, which the militants oppose."

What type of shit is that?

How and why, exactly, do the militants oppose elections? Did they issue a statement? Were they in the middle of a meeting and decided to officially come out against elections? This isn't exactly a city council here, or some special interest group. These are bunch of lunatics who think it's crap that we invaded their country (no one said a lunatic never had a fair point), and are willing to do anything they can to frustrate American success over there, because they've been taught for their entire life that we are really, really bad.

They don't oppose the election. They oppose us. I'm not looking to argue the war one way or the other, it's no secret what I think about it, but it is retarded when the media attributes some kind of rational, organizational structure and process to these groups and their decisions and actions. If George Bush announced tomorrow that the elections were off, and he was just installing a leader, would this placate these people? Of course not, they'd bomb the shit out of us some more and accuse us of being imperialistic.

Sum: I'm not trying to blame these guys for being pissed off that we are there, because they may have a point. That said, bombing random Iraqis and Americans is not really a cohesive plan to get your point across, and it certainly doesn't help when reputable papers like the Times start helping these guys out by presenting them as some well-organized public interest group.

The problem with America's leadership

2004-12-17T16:36:00.000-05:00

From my friend Blake just a little while ago, upon learning that one of our friends (a future leader of the country, we suspect), is spending New Year's Eve in Times Square:

"This is the problem. Those who lead think that times square is a good idea."

A truly profound statement.

The Funniest Shows on Television Right Now

2004-12-17T11:57:00.000-05:00

A busy day for the BPloG, but I needed to move on from all the Pedro news.

The funniest shows on television right now, in no particular order, are as follows. If you aren't watching all of these shows, you're missing a chance to laugh very, very hard.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Basic plot: The chronicles of Larry David (co-founder, producer of Seinfeld, person on whom the character "George" was loosely based) in his post-Seinfeld life out in L.A.

It's tough to describe why this show is so funny, but Larry makes it work every single time. He has tremendously awkward encounters with people (failing to tip properly at a fancy NYC hotel, slashign the tires of a professional wrestler's car) and does outrageous things (like "stealing" back his own golf club out of a dead man's casket at his wake). The show definitely takes a little getting used to (I didn't like it the first time I saw it), because it is largely ad-libbed, making it a little uncomfortable until you get accustomed to the style. It's on HBO in re-runs, and the next season should be coming out in the next few months.

My favorite line/scene from the show: "The dog bit my penis!"

The Office

Basic plot: Set in Slough, England (think Hackensack, NJ without the proximity to NYC) at the regional headquarters of a paper company; filmed as a mock reality TV show chronicling the daily events in the office.

The show works because a) it is funny to listen to British people talk b) British humor is unbelievably dry and sarcastic and c) the lead character, Ricky Gervais ("David Brent," also co-producer) steals every single show. He is an obnoxious, politically incorrect single guy in his 40's (late 30's) and is in charge of the office. He uses the faux-philosophy that an easygoing and humor-loving boss gets the best results as an excuse to get absolutely nothing accomplished.

My favorite line/scene from the show: In a scene in which David is interviewing a candidate for a new secretarial position (which he has already made clear this guy won't get, because the other candidate is a decent-looking female), the candidate is sitting in David's office, and looks up at the wall to see a framed quote: "Money don't make my world go 'round, I'm reaching out for a higher ground." The following exchange takes place:

Candidate: "Is that a philosopher."
David: "Sort of, it's Des'Ree."

He then proceeds to sing way too much of the song.

Watch this show (available on NetFlix if you don't get BBC-America).

Arrested Development

Basic plot: In the pilot, Jason Bateman's dad is sent to jail for a variety of white-collar crimes arising out of operating the family business. Bateman is left to run the business with the help (hindrance) of his mother, three brothers, sister (Portia DeRossi . . . sooo hot), and his son, George Michael Bluth.

This show is hysterical. Just watch it one time. The narrator makes everything work. If the
Simpsons were a live-action show as opposed to animated, it would probably be something like this.

My favortie line/scene from the show: When her mother Lindsay (DeRossi) tries to move in on a high school guy that she has a crush on, Maeby (Bateman's niece) convinces the guy that her mom is a transsexual. Pretending to give her mom a fashionable new gift, Maeby presents her with a shirt with the words "Shemale" written across in flowing script. Explains Maeby, "it's a shemale (shi-MAH-lee)," as if that's some sort of designer. It's hysterical.

Currently in syndication so ineligible for this posting: Simpsons, Seinfeld, Family Guy. Nothing needs to be written about the first two, they are clearly the funniest two shows ever, but Family Guy is worth a watch. Catch it on TBS weeknights, or late night on the Cartoon Network.

Mike and the Mad Pedro

2004-12-17T11:35:00.000-05:00

Pedro with Mike and the Mad Dog . . . a little awkward when he starts lecturing them about caring more about ratings than about getting the story right, but still pretty interesting to hear his take on leaving the Red Sox. Give Russo credit . . . he asks the uncomfortable questions. Francesa on the other hand is content to look on knowingly as the sports guru he belives himself to be. God I hate that guy.

Prescience of the BPloG

2004-12-17T11:13:00.000-05:00

Maybe I was on to something with the suggestion that Minaya grabbed Pedro as bait for bigger fish . . . Beltran anyone?

Pedro Redux

2004-12-16T13:37:00.000-05:00

So I started to have second thoughts about how hard I was on the Mets yesterday for the Pedro signing. I am certainly prone to irrational optimism when it comes to the Mets, but there is one interesting quirk about Pedro's 2004 numbers that does bear consideration.

On September 8, 2004, Pedro was 16-5 with a 3.44 ERA. He proceeded to have one of the worst stretches in his career, going 0-4 over his next 4 starts (two against the Yankees, two against the D-Rays), with a 7.79 ERA. In that stretch, Pedro surrendered six home runs, 30 base hits, 11 walks, and 21 runs (all but one of them earned). As a result, he finished 16-9 with an ERA just under 4.

If Pedro is capable of pitching at his April-September 8 level for the Mets this year (in other words, assume that any decline in skills can be offset by the advantage of pitching in the NL), I'll worry about those last 4 starts at the end of the year.

For all the "Pedro isn't Pedro anymore" talk that we've heard lately, the guy only had five losses two days after labor day. His ERA is up, yes, but perhaps not as much as the 3.90 he finished with suggests.

Four years is still way too long, but the Sox had offered three, and a tie was going to go to them.

He needs to be used sparingly, and there is no reason to throw him out for the seventh and eighth innings in games in which the team is comfortably ahead, but if he can rack up another 16 wins compared to five losses for the first five months, I'd give him all the rest he needs in September. Realistically, this is a team trying to win 85-88 games, not a World Series.

So I guess I'm back on board for the time being . . . and I'll be buying by NYM #45 jersey some time after Christmas.

Another note: Omar Minaya claimed at the press conference today that "a number of free agents" had contacted him about playing for the Mets now that they have shown themselves to be serious about getting better. Is there any chance that he signed Pedro in an attempt to make a run at Beltran? Now that's a conspiracy theory.

Pedro

2004-12-15T09:37:00.000-05:00

So I haven't written in a while, and perhaps my three loyal readers have gotten bored and stopped checking, but I'm back with a new installment.

Pedro. 4 years, $52 million.

I have been trying for the last 48 hours to come up with a realistic explanation of why this is a good idea, but I am finding it impossible. In no particular order:

"He can be so much more effective in the National League because there is no designated hitter, not to mention the fact that Shea is a tremendously pitcher-friendly park." True, but his velocity is off, his labrum is torn (some put the tear at 90%), and he is a head-hunter who now has to worry about retaliation on his own body, as opposed to someone else's.

"He may not Pedro of 1999, but he was 16-9 last year with over 200 innings pitched and an ERA under 4.00." True, but there is no reason to believe these numbers will be static, as he has seen a decline in his performance over the last few years.

"Maybe 4 years is too long, but they had to offer it in order to get him, and he was one of the best pitchers available in this market." The first part may be right, that in order to get Pedro the Mets had to offer a fourth year, but did the Mets have to get Pedro? Are there no other pitchers out there this year? In no particular order, Carl Pavano, Russ Ortiz, Brad Radke, Jaret Wright, Derek Lowe, Jon Lieber, Eric Milton, Matt Clement and Roger Clemens, to name a few, are/were all available via free agency. Not to mention the fact that the A's are clearly willing to move Tim Hudson in return for prospects. If the Mets have $52 million to drop on a top-flight pitcher, why did they make no attempt to sign Pavano? Or Brad Radke? Or Matt Clement ?

"Maybe Omar was given free reign to make the biggest signing of the off-season to drum up both ticket sales and interest in the Mets TV network. Maybe a top-flight Dominican player in Queens guarantees increased ticket sales. Maybe the sale of Pedro shirts alone will make the deal pay off." Maybe, but then again, none of these things have anything to do with the Mets winning a World Series, which, from a revenue stand point, would blow all of those other things out of the water. Moreover, if the Mets want to bring a top-tier Dominican player to Queens (which I agree would be a smart business move), then why didn't they open the vault for Vlad last year? Or forego the extra money they are demanding from the Red Sox to make the Manny Ramirez trade happen?

Pedro has a huge potential downside (injury, mood swings, cancer in the clubhouse, declining talent, etc., etc.), and does not appear to have any equivalent potential upside (does anyone think he's going to win 20 games even once for the Mets? ). I simply cannot understand the thinking here unless Minaya is genuinely turning a blind eye to all of the things that other people in baseball seem to see so clearly.

There is one potential hurdle that the Pedro-Mets deal may not be able to overcome. If it is true that Pedro has a serious injury somewhere in his shoulder, an MRI would certainly reveal that injury. Although initial reports were that Pedro would not submit to one, those were apparently incorrect, and he is going to have a full physical (MRI included) in New York today. If the injury is serious enough, the Mets can still back out of the deal (they haven't signed anything yet). This seems unlikely, but would be a fantastic turn of events for a team that seems chronically prone to signing players passed their prime (see next week's installment on the errors of the Carlos Delgado signing).

One silver lining: Glavine, Martinez, Benson, Zambrano, Trachsel is clearly a much more appealing starting five than Glavine, Leiter, Trachsel, Yates, Erickson (the opening day rotation in 2004). Unfortunately, the money being poured into these guys' pockets (the Mets overpaid for Kris Benson, too) might hamstring them for the next few years.

On a role . .

2004-12-02T17:01:00.000-05:00

This is an extension of a conversation that we have been having over e-mail, so if you are reading this and were not privy to those discussions, here is a brief summary: Goldman, echoed by Max, suggested that NBA players are not payed to be role models, and if you want them to do more than simply give 100% of their effort for 48 minutes each night, you need to contractually obligate them to do so (I assume I will be corrected in the comments if I have mischaracterized the position). Goldman likened his position a little bit to Charles Barkley's infamous comments of a few years ago, that parents, teachers, etc., are the appropriate people to be shaping the character and morals of young people.

I disagree.

I find one of the most disheartening aspects of modern America to be this notion that it is somehow unjustified for "society" (a murky term, I know) to expect its members to do certain things just because they are the right thing to do. The "that's not my job" mentality is so pervasive in our country that - I think - people lose sight of the myriad of ways in which it manifests itself. In the context of our present debate, the argument is that because NBA players are not paid to be role models, or have not previously agreed to serve as role models, that it is somehow unfair for us to ask them to serve in that capacity anyway.

I think the contrary position - that society can ask for certain behaviors and sacrifices of its members, especially those who can afford (not necessarily financially, but rather socially) to fill this need - is a more defensible way to look at things. Political philosophers tell us that when we enter into society we do so out of a hypothetical "state of nature," in which you are free to do whatever you want, but so is the next guy, so he can whip your ass with no repercussions if he feels like it. In return for the protection (police, in my last example) that society offers, we are expected to give up the ability to do whatever we want, and curb our behavior to fit within certain societal norms.

I suspect no one disagrees just yet. The difference in opinion, I think, will arise when I suggest that in addition to positive rights and negative obligations (the right to free speech, the obligation not to kill people), the social contract also imposes negative rights and positive obligations (the right not to be jaded by violence on television, or the obligation to live your life so as to minimize the detrimental impact on young people who look up to you). In other words, I think the social contract encompasses an obligation to behave in a manner that is reasonably likely to help (or at least refrain from hindering) the development of young people. Why? Because it seems only fair that if an adult citizen is able to seek self-actualization in a rule-governed and morally-ordered society, then (s)he has a reciprocal obligation to simultaneously serve as a good steward of that society so that future generations are equally capable of making a go at self-actualization.

Put another way, people who have achieved a point in life where they are looked up have necessarily taken full advantage of the ordered society. Having now achieved that success, it is patently unfair of them to turn around and shirk their responsibilities to keep society in good order, so that others can have a chance at the same success they now enjoy. When a professional athlete declines to behave in accordance with social norms (don't get in fights, don't curse at the fans, don't misogynize, etc.) he is contributing to the erosion of the morally-ordered society that helped get them to where they are in the first place.

This is why athletes ought to behave as role models, so that kids who look up to them (whether the athletes like it or not) get the right message, and stay as close as possible to the path that promises the best chance of self-actualization. What we have already given these professional athletes in return is the ordered society that has permitted them to live the life they choose, i.e. the opportunity for self-actualization. So in a way, society has already made a down payment to the players (the freedom to pursue a basketball career in an ordered society), and the demand that, in return, they serve as a role model for future generations is simply the balance due.

Say Go New York, Go New York, Go!

2004-12-01T17:37:00.000-05:00

After last night's win against the Hawks, the Knicks are now 7-6, first in their (admittedly awful) division. Several things to note here:

1. The last time the Knicks were over .500 was December 10, 2001. That is really amazing.

2. For all the talk of how bad the Knicks were/are/are going to be, they have played pretty well so far, including some nice wins against Houston and Toronto.

3. Whoever called that final play last night (clearly a designed play for Marbury to dish to Crawford) - whether it was Wilkens or Marbury - looks like a f---ing genius this morning. Crawford was awful from the floor last night, and even worse from behind the arc. To go to him with the game on the line was a gutsy move.

4. Marbury hitting his two free throws with basically no time left in regulation to force over time is just one more piece of evidence that bringing him to New York was the best move this team has made since drafting Ewing. He is the man, and has obviously found a happy home at MSG.

Thank You For Being a Friend

2004-11-30T17:44:00.000-05:00

In a shockingly under-promoted release, season 1 of the "Golden Girls" was released on DVD a few days ago. Though I can't figure out exactly what angle I want to take on this, it clearly merits some mention here on the BPloG. Here are my thoughts on the Golden Girls, in no particular order.

1. Why does this show have to be syndicated on Lifetime?

There are two truths in my life: the first is that the Mets will never be as good as I think they are, and the second is that guys who watch Lifetime Television are not possessing of the distinctive physical characteristics that make us men. Nevertheless, when Golden Girls comes on (weekdays, 6:00 Eastern, only on Lifetime), I begin to question this truth. I nervously look around to make sure no one is looking, and tune in until someone comes into the room, and, like a 14 year-old with the Sears catalog, quickly pretend to have been doing something else. Sometimes - if I am lucky - Meaghan will say that she wants to watch it, and then I can pretend to give in, all the while excitedly anticipating another Sophia zinger, or meaningless story about St. Olaf.

Couldn't Comedy Central pick this show up? How about TBS? I can watch the SuperStation and still be a man (can't I?).

2. Does it boggle anyone else's mind that Estelle Getty (Sophia) and Bea Arthur (Dorothy) were born in the same year?

Did they really have make-up and costume people who were this good in the 1980's? This is the same decade that brought us Diff'Rent Strokes (is the "R" capitalized? Can I get a ruling on this?) and Little House on the Prairie! I swear Charles Ingalls was wearing FUBU in one episode; and Conrad Baines only owned one sweater through six seasons!

Brief digression: speaking of Diff'rent Strokes (that looks better to me), I have to tell this story: I was sitting in my living room in college one time, and we had one of those descrambler boxes that gets all the channels (even the naughty ones . . . yay!) and the following movie came on Cinemax: "Different Strokes: The Story of Jack and Jill . . . . and Jill," and, this is the best part, it starred Dana Plato (Kimberly from Diff'rent Strokes). I swear on Bill Buckner's lower back that this is the true, unenhanced version of this story.

Back to the Golden Girls . . .

3. Does anyone remember the one VSE (very special episode) in which Dorothy was dating a cop, and he had to do a sting operation out of their living room because a drug deal was going on next door?

Of course you do. Is there a 30-minute block of television that defies credibility more than this episode? Someone actually got shot on the Golden Girls! No one ever got shot on the A-Team for christ's sake (well, that's not true, there are actually three episodes in which a member of the A-Team is shot; only Face dodged the proverbial bullet throughout his time with those merry mercenaries). Honestly, though, talk about versatile; a seamless transition from Blanche's escapades to Dorothy's new boyfriend getting shot. Brilliant.

4. Speaking of Blanche's escapades, did that stuff ever turn anyone on? Ever?

Of course not. Which begs the question, what was with the constant sexual innuendo with her? Was she hot? Is Rue McClanahan hot? Am I destined to think she's hot when I am 60? Am I missing something here? That stuff always made me feel a little awkward. Maybe b/c I'm Catholic, but I don't think so.

5. Where did the "people from Minnesota are dumb" thing come from?

Is there any basis for this? I know a few people from Minnesota; they seem like a decent bunch. They voted for Kerry, so they can't be that bad.

That's all I can think of for now, but I suspect there will be more.

Giants Mid-Season Review

2004-11-30T10:03:00.000-05:00

Well, it's not exactly the mid-season, but after 11 weeks, there are a few high points, and a number of low points so far this season.

First the highlights:

Subject: Tikki Barber
Grade: A +
Most Impressive Stat: Not a single fumble lost in 224 carries this season.

This is a very easy one, Tikki has easily been the brightest star for the Giants so far this season. He is on pace to break Priest Holmes' record for most yards from scrimmage in a single season (he currently has 1,641 yards, needing 647 more to break the record). This is the equivalent of Ichiro getting the most hits in a season; I can not understand why this is not a bigger story.

Tikki has been very effective running (5.1/carry), reliable on short routes and dumps, and - as few have noticed - a very effective blocker for the QB when called on to do so. Moreover - as noted above - he has finally cut down (entirely) on fumbles. He is easily the team's MVP this year, and if they can pull out a playoff appearance (miraculously still a possibility; see below), should get a few votes for MVP.

Subject: Jeremy Shockey
Grade: B
Most Impressive Stat: Leads the team in total receptions (44) and receiving touchdowns (5).

Despite some early whining about having to block occasionally, the numbers dont' lie: Shockey is this team's go-to guy when they throw the football. He leads the team in total receptions and receiving touchdowns, and is a tremendous presence on the field when he is barrelling over some safety who tries to tackle him in the open field. It is also very exciting to see Shockey line up as a wide-out to scare the opposing defense into dropping into deeper coverage.

The B is not followed by a "plus" for two reasons: first, Shockey drops way too many passes. He is so fired up to run someone over, that he takes his first step with the ball before he has the ball. This has got to stop. Second, he still bitches too much. Both on the field (he still gets the occasional unsportsmanlike conduct for taunting after a 4-yd reception), and off the field (especially at the beginning of the season). Just shut up. It's obvious they are going to throw to you, so shut up, catch the ball, score touchdowns, and throw the occasional block. (To his credit, his blocking has improved in the last few weeks).

Subject: Gibril Wilson
Grade: A-
Most Impressive Stat: Leads the team with three interceptions in only 8 games.

Where the hell did this guy come from? Clearly the biggest surprise of the season, Gibril Wilson has offered some help to the Giants secondary where they probably didn't expect any. An obvious choice for the NFL all-rookie team, he might even get a few votes for the Pro-Bowl. The minus is for missing three games; if this guy can stay healthy, he should be a force for a number of years.

And on to the bad news . . .

Subject: The Offensive Line
Grade: D+
Least Impressive Stat: Have allowed an NFL-worst 46 sacks.

Well, this certainly is not a surprise. Going into the season, the G-men were expected to struggle here, which led to drafting BC-rookie Chris Snee (aka Coach Coughlin's daughter's babydaddy). Snee has been ok, but is still learning, and the rest of the group simply is not up to the challenge of playing 4 games against the best two defenses in the league (Philly and Washington). This is obviously an area where the Giants will need to improve dramatically in the off-season. The "plus" is a nod to Tikki's yardage this year; they have opened up the occasional big hole for him.

Subject: Kurt Warner
Grade: C+
Least Impressive Stat: Only 6 touchdown passes (with 4 interceptions) in 9 games.

There were low expectations for Warner coming into this season; he was expected to keep the QB spot warm for Eli, and maybe keep the Giants close in their winnable games. He lived up to those expectations, but did little else. He is not even remotely mobile, and without a functional offensive line, he was probably doomed from the start. He showed a complete inability to step up in the pocket, and made a few really bad decisions in close games (the picks late in the first half against Chicago were awful) that led to losses. The "plus" is for being a good sport about Eli taking over, and counseling him on the sidelines after each play.

Subject: Tom Coughlin
Grade: C-
Least Impressive Stat: Losses to Detroit, Chicago, and Arizona.

After making a splash in New York by adjusting Eastern Standard Time by five minutes, Coughlin has flown relatively low under the radar for the past few months, and I have no idea why. He is supposed to be this dynamic, militant coach who demands and receives the best from all of his players. What I have seen is a mediocre coach who uses timeouts poorly, relies on clearly ineffective players (Dayne) and makes tremendously questionable decisions on offense. I won't blame him for the sacks or any of the O-line problems on offense, but his play calling inside the 20 gives me no confidence. Just last weekend, on 1st and goal, following a huge gain by Taylor, why are we not running (at least once) with the league's best back? The lob to Shockey on first down was not the play for an inexperienced quarterback; Coughlin had to know that.

Overall the Giants started off very impressively, and then came back down to earth. Going to Eli was the right move, but if he continues to struggle, and the Giants get within striking distance of the playoffs, can Coughlin really leave Warner on the bench? Maybe.

Incidentally, speaking of the playoffs, the Giants can still get in. Wins against Dallas, Washington and Cincinnati are all very possible; assuming losses to Pittsburgh and Baltimore, the Giants would be 8-8, with a 6-6 conference record. St. Louis would need to win at least three of their last five games just to get to a tiebreaker, and even if they did, would need a better conference record against the Giants to win the tiebreak. They close out against Philly and the Jets, so would probably need to sweep San Francisco, Arizona and Carolina in order to get the 8 wins they'll need. Also, if Minnesota or Green Bay falters, we own tiebreaks with both of them, having beaten both earlier in the season.

A Fresh Conspiracy Theory

2004-11-29T13:22:00.000-05:00

This will be the first post on the new BPloG, a web-log of my random thoughts and observations on life. I'll dispense with any sort of "about me" since, if you are reading this, chances are you already know me. If you do not, well, write to me and I'll fill you in (it's not that exciting).

On to today's topic . . .

I admit to being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, often looking for people's secret motivations to help explain unusual behavior. Currently, the crosshairs of my suspicion are aimed at Arizona Senator John McCain. Specifically, I had a very difficult time figuring out why on earth he would support George Bush for President. I know they're both Republicans, and both are a little wacko when it comes to the whole finger-on-the-trigger thing ("Now I'm a patient man Focker, that's what 18 months in a Vietnamese prison will do you" - DeNiro), but to understand anything of McCain - a fiscal conservative - is to realize that Bush has kicked wide right of where McCain falls on the political spectrum for the last four years. With Kerry falling over himself to court moderate Republicans, you have to be a little surprised that McCain couldn't be lured slightly left. Throw in the truly awful things that Bush (Rove) did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000 (see http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522 for what appears to be a decent recount of the whole mess), and it is that much more surprising that McCain was able to swallow his substantial pride and endorse Bush.

So now comes the 2004 presidential election, and Kerry is begging - literally begging - McCain to be his running mate as a means of winning over some moderate Republicans who are a little peckish at the whole skyrocketing national debt thing, the price tag and body count coming out of Iraq, etc. McCain goes on Meet the Press, tells Russert about 78 different times that he won't do it, and that he is supporting George Bush.

Why? Is it just party loyalty? Is the label of Republicanism sufficient to convince this guy - who by all accounts is a stand-up guy (well, all accounts except Rove's in SC in 2000) - to sell out and support a President who got to the White House in part by slandering him? Maybe. I am sure some will read this and think, "yeah, he's a Republican, hasn't ruled out running in 2008, so he couldn't sell out the party." Maybe, or maybe he was promised something in return for supporting the President.

Then again, maybe that is it. Maybe he does want to be President. Maybe he wants to be President, and realizes that the best way to get noticed as a candidate for President is to be the VICE-President. Hmmmm . . . .

It's no secret that Dick Cheney's heart is losing the war to bacon, and perhaps he realizes (as the rest of us) that his health would be better served by long walks on the beach, or a dip in his Haliburton money pit (can't you just picture him swimming in his gold like Scrooge McDuck on that cartoon Duck Tales? Come on, you know you used to watch it) than by continuing to clean up after Boy George.

If that's right, then maybe Karl Rove saw an opening. Rove knew that McCain going left would put him and his boys on the unemployment line, so he confirms with Cheney what had probably already been decided, that Cheney would step down about 12-18 months after the election. Then, following a really sweet tribute in which W gets all moist talking about what a great public servant Dick has been, he can stoically choose another great American patriot - John McCain - to be his vice-president for the remainder of the term. McCain gets what he wanted all along - the advantage of incumbency going in to 2008, Bush already got what he wanted, a second term, and Cheney was never going to run in 2008 anyway, so he takes himself out of the game a few innings early.

Recap: Kerry starts flirting with McCain, McCain makes it look like he's interested, Rove shits a brick the size of west Texas, dreams up this little plan, sells it to Dick and W, offers it to McCain, and it's all done. I certainly can't prove it, but it's a brilliant move if Rove actually pulled it off.

Stay tuned . . .