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.