What Massachusetts Is Like

I'm always interested in providing important public services.  Recently I realized that while I live in Massachusetts, most of my Facebook friends, and most of the people who might read this, are not from Massachusetts, and might have no idea what it's like here.  I also think the Facebook friends I do have from Massachusetts could benefit from seeing how it looks to an outsider.  So what's Massachusetts like? 

First of all, Boston accents aren't a real thing.  I've never once met someone with a Ben Affleck style Boston accent.  I think it's just something TV and movies made up for fun.  It's not that people here have no accents.  I have one co-worker who talks a little like Peter Griffin.  He might be from Rhode Island or somewhere.  I have a friend from about an hour north of Boston.  Her accent is certainly unique, but nothing like Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, or Ben Affleck in everything.  Boston accents aren't real, tell your friends.

Also, people here are obsessed with Dunkin Donuts, to like an unhealthy degree.  When I lived in New York, Dunkin Donuts was where you would go to get cheap, serviceable coffee because you didn't feel like waiting in line forever and overpaying at Starbucks.  I've lived here for five years and I've seen two Starbucks, and one of them is on my campus.  Meanwhile, on my 10-15 minute drive home, I can pass anywhere between two and five Dunkin Donuts locations.  Everyone you meet here has worked at a Dunkin Donuts at some point.  Everyone.  Sometimes you can see a Dunkin Donuts from another Dunkin Donuts.  And nobody ever actually gets donuts. 

Speaking of food, it's mostly terrible here.  I did have good Chinese food at one point this summer, and also good Italian food once last month, but those took me five years to find.  As far as I can tell, there's no such thing as a good deli here.  When I worked in Manhattan, there was this place near work called Taco Grill.  It was greasy and horrible and delicious.  And if you wanted something a little less heart clogging, there was the Great Burrito.  You cannot get a good taco in Massachusetts.  Not anywhere, not ever.  And then there's the pizza.

The pizza here is infuriating.  I've seen such horrible things.  It's like the Vietnam of pizza.  I've seen round pies cut into squares.  I've seen pies cut into 16 slices instead of 8 for no reason other than to bother me.  I've seen "thin crust" "New York Style" pizza with crust so thick you can't even really fold it in half.  There's a place right across the street from work called Peppa's.  Sometimes, if you catch them on the right day, the pizza there is almost good.  But, most of the time, the crust is just a little too thick in the most frustrating way because it's so close.  After five years here, I finally found a decent pizza place this summer.  It's a 35 minute drive and they still cut the pizza into too many slices unless you tell them not to, but at least it tastes like it's supposed to taste.

When you live in Massachusetts, you can't just go to a 7-11 or a regular little grocery store for alcohol.  When I went to Hofstra, there was this place down Hempstead Turnpike near the hospital that just sold beer and other drinks.  It might have been called the Beverage Barn.  It also might not have been called that, I don't really remember.  Massachusetts is full of places like that.  They're called package stores.  Some people also call them packys, but you don't want to associate with those people.  They're the only place you can get beer and liquor, and they're only open until like 8PM, and I think they may be completely closed on Sundays.  I thought Massachusetts was supposed to be fun.

Especially when I was at college, there was this thing where you'd call people with Massachusetts license plates massholes and say they didn't know how to drive.  After living here for five years, I don't know if people here are bad drivers, but if they are, they certainly have an excuse.  Driving here is terrifying.  All the roads are one lane, and the roads that have more then one lane usually have at least one lane under construction.  Everything here is constantly under construction, but nothing is ever finished or even better.

About a mile or two from where I work, there's this thing called a rotary.  Five or a hundred different roads converge in a circle.  There are no traffic lights to be seen, and yield and stop signs are just sort of scattered about in no particular pattern.  You have to get from one side of the circle to some road that leaves the circle somewhere else with no assistance from traffic signs or regulations.  It's a nightmare.  This summer I tried to go through the rotary to Enfield, CT but I wound up in Somers, CT, which is a solid five miles from Enfield, because I picked the wrong road because there are no signs.  If people from Massachusetts are bad drivers in New York, you really can't blame them.  They're not used to roads that go straight and are marked.

I don't know if this is a Massachusetts thing or just a reflection of this generation of stupid parents and helpless kids, but school buses stop at your house here.  When I was a kid, we had this thing called a bus stop where you'd go and the bus would sort of meet you there.  At least I think that's how it worked, I only took the bus to kindergarten.  Anyway, here, the school bus stops at every house.  I get stuck behind it on the way to work sometimes.  It just stops in front of a house and sits there until some kid comes running out, usually with at least one parent.  Then it rolls a few houses forward and picks up the next kid.  No wonder they have no public transportation here.  People would just be sitting in front of their houses wondering why the bus hasn't come to take them to work yet.

Massachusetts isn't all bad.  For one thing, when the next election comes up, I can just vote for whatever crazy third-party candidate I want because my vote doesn't really matter here.  Also, there's a Roy Rogers within driving distance of where I live.  The people here are mostly friendly too.  You have to get used to making eye contact with people when you're walking, and even saying hello sometimes, but once you do it's actually not so bad. 

The weather here is sort of a mixed bag.  Since I moved here, I've experienced a number of things I never remember seeing once in New York.  I've seen a tornado, hail, snow in October, an earthquake (which isn't really weather but still) and a hurricane even though we're nowhere near the ocean.  On the plus side you can actually see some stars here.  I'm willing to sit through a few earthquakes and tornadoes for a good night sky.

You would probably expect that I'd mention sports at some point, but really there's no need.  Sports are pretty much the same here.  Red Sox fans, once the adorable underdogs of the sports world, are just like Yankee fans now...super spoiled and terribly whiny whenever the team isn't good even though they just won a championship like two years ago.  Celtics fans are just like Knicks fans, despondent and pathetically hopeful about this new coach.  Patriots fans are just like Giants fans in the 80s when Parcells was there...unwilling or unable to shut up about the coach and how great he is and how nobody has ever coached football like he coaches football. 

Sidenote, watching this whole deflated footballs thing unfold from inside New England was fascinating.  For the record, this was the stupidest fake sports scandal in the history of what I can remember and I can't believe Brady almost missed actual games for it, but still, people here were so defensive.  If they had found Brady's fingerprints on the inside of every football in question, people here would have been like "that's totally normal, quarterbacks always thoroughly finger the inside of the footballs, STOP SINGLING BRADY OUT!!!!".

I don't mean to be so negative on where I live now.  For all I know, it could be the second best place in the world to live.  I would definitely go to college here.  There's colleges everywhere.  At Hofstra, the only other school I can remember being near us was Adelphi, and I'm pretty sure we ignored them on purpose.  Where I am now there's like 10 colleges right around here.  I'm sure the kids are having a fun time.  Massachusetts is a nice place, it just isn't New York.  But what is?

Sean and Soccer Save the World

Years ago, during the 2010 World Cup final http://somethingclever13.blogspot.com/2010/07/two-teams-one-cup.html, I commented that any part of life could be improved by employing the same yellow card/red card system used in soccer games.  I always meant to elaborate on that, but then we all got really into planking, and then the 2012 election happened and I just sort of forgot about it.  It's never too late to make the world a better place though, so here goes.

First of all, if you're not a soccer fan, let me briefly review how cards work in soccer (and if you are a soccer fan...ya know...why?).  If you're playing soccer and you do something mildly alarming, like accidentally kick a guy in the shin while going for the ball, or hold the back of someone's jersey so they try to get the ball but can't and it's pretty hilarious but also not allowed, then the referee may run up to you and waive a yellow card at you.  The referee will also write your name down, I've noticed.  A yellow card is basically a warning to please stop doing dickish things to your fellow soccer players or else.  Or else what?

Well, let's say you do something very alarming, like picking the ball up and spiking it onto the referee's head, or intentionally kicking a fellow soccer man directly in the testicles.  At that point, the referee (assuming his head isn't bleeding too badly) will run up to you and waive a red card in your face.  When that happens, you have to leave and no more soccering for you today.  I suppose you could go to a park down the street or something and play in a different game, but the people in the park would probably ask you why you left your original game, and you'd say you kicked someone in the genitals, and then they would probably say they don't really want to play with you.

You also get a red card if you get a second yellow card in the same game, and it seems that if you get a second yellow card in two different games in the same tournament you have to sit out the next game after that.  It seems odd that two overly aggressive attempts to steal the ball would result in the same penalty as punching a goalie in the face for no reason, but I guess it's the only way to make the yellow cards meaningful.

Clearly, this would be an excellent addition to everyday life, so the question is how do we implement it effectively?  First of all, I'm only worried about American implementation.  I can't control the rest of the world and for all I know Europe and South America already use soccer cards in everyday life, those people love soccer.  I can't force Canada to do anything, and honestly they're already so polite they may not need this.  So just America, at least for starters.

Step one is easy.  Just have the Department of the Interior mail every American citizen their cards.  I can't imagine two cards for everyone would be all that expensive, although they would need some technology in them and we'll get to that in a minute.  The technology probably rules out getting them online, although I guess we could just all use our phones.  I don't know, people like getting mail sometimes.  I've always wanted a pen pal.

This also raises the question of whether or not kids get cards.  I think we need to hash out the process and consequences a little more before we decide if we can trust kids with this responsibility, so let's put a pin in that and get back to it. 

Alright so everybody has cards, now what?  Well, I think, and some people are probably going to be a little uncomfortable with this, but I think the only way to do this correctly is for everyone to get chips implanted in their heads.  I thought about this for 30 or 45 seconds and I really can't think of a better plan.  Now before you say no, just think about a couple of things.  First of all, we're not putting chips in your brain, just in your head.  Under the skin somewhere, but outside your skull.  That's not so bad, right?  More importantly, this only works to improve the world if we all play along.  If you try to give a stranger a yellow card and they just run away and don't give you their name, the system ceases to work.  If there's a chip in your card and a chip in the stranger's head, his yellow card is immediately recorded in the card database and he can run all he wants, he still has a yellow card.

This brings us to the other piece of technology we'll be needing.  Hand held cards are good for work and grocery stores and stuff, but we would absolutely need to integrate the card system into driving.  This shouldn't be that hard.  Every car would need to be equipped with a sensor and a voice activated card system.  If you need to give another car a card while driving, you would just say "Car in front of me, yellow card" and then the car in front of you would get a yellow card.  Ideally, yellow lights would flash in his car for a minute to alert him.  This would be fun but not entirely necessary.

Whenever you get a chance, when you get home or whatever, you would just log into the database and put in the specific reasons for whatever cards you issued that day.  There has to be some review process.  We can't just have people issuing cards with no oversight.  We would need a team of card administrators reviewing all cards issued and reasons given, and either approving or disallowing them.  This leads to the next big element...valid reasons for giving a card.

You have to understand that this system isn't meant to replace our criminal justice system.  If somebody shoots you in the face or robs your house or something, they would still go to jail.  Cards are for those things that are really annoying and everybody hates you for doing, but aren't necessarily illegal.  At the same time, we can't let people use the cards to be mean or get revenge for stuff.  If you ask someone to lunch and they say no, you can't give them a yellow card.  People have the right to not have lunch with you. 

We'd start with a committee to generate a starter list of valid reasons for cards.  The committee would consist of the following people:
Me (obviously)
Neil Degrasse Tyson
Norm MacDonald
Emma Stone
Ronald Reagan's Ghost (I know, but everybody has to feel represented on the committee.  We can't have an entire country of Republicans refusing to participate in the card system)
Beyoncé or Jay-Z, but not both of them
Slash
Ian Darke (for soccer knowledge and Britishness)
Elizabeth Warren
Stephen Hawking (I know we already have a scientist, but I'm just looking for smart people, multiple scientists were bound to happen)
The Pope (not the last guy, but definitely the current guy)
Gibbs
Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart, but again, not both of them
Ellen Page
Hemingway's Ghost (as long as we're inviting ghosts)
Morgan Freeman
Tina Fey (I'm iffy on Tina, but the committee needs more women)

I'm open to other suggestions for the committee.  It clearly needs a few more women.  I thought about Kirsten Gillebrand but we already have a Senator and the Senate already has enough power.  I would think the committee could get pretty big, maybe around 30 people. 

Once the committee generated a starter list, we could roll out the system, but we could continue to add things to the list as they come up.  Any new reason entered into the database would be reviewed by an administrator.  If the administrator saw some validity, the reason would be submitted to the committee and it would need to be approved by a 2/3 majority.  Committee members would have lifetime appointments.  When they died, the remaining members of the committee would replace them in a very secretive process that I really can't tell you about because it's a secret.

Since I'm on the committee, I can give you a quick preview of some of the things that will earn you a card...

Yellow Cards
-Driving below the speed limit on a one lane road
-Using the self check-out at the grocery store when you clearly don't know how to use the self check-out at the grocery store
-Coming into my office without commenting on the awesome art that now resides in my office
-Watching Thursday night football when your fantasy team isn't directly impacted
-Telling people you're "from New York" when you're actually from upstate New York.  North of Westchester is just meth labs and broken dreams.
-Wearing a bike helmet as an adult
-Not being willing to admit that SVU is unwatchable without Stabler
-Playing video games as an adult
-Trying to get on the subway or an elevator before other people get off
-Walking slowly on the sidewalk (New York City only)

Red Cards
-Being mean to an animal in any way that falls short of breaking the law (stinging insects do not in any way count as animals and you can be as mean to them as you want)
-Leaving a crappy tip for no good reason
-Burping loudly in public and then reacting as though you've accomplished something or done something funny.
-Day drinking after you've graduated college.  You could literally say to people "go home, you're drunk" and they would have to listen to you.  How fun would that be?

What happens when you get a card?  Yellow cards are easy.  Yellow cards are just a warning, so nothing really has to happen.  We're not doing the whole two yellow cards equals a red card thing because I think that's silly in real life, so yellow cards have no concrete consequences, you just feel shame, which should be enough.  You could even issue some joking yellow cards to friends, but we'd keep an eye on you because too many joke yellow cards would corrupt the system.  If you issued too many joke yellow cards, me or Neil would show up personally to issue you a red card and take your cards away for some indefinite period of time.  Once you were cardless, people could do whatever they wanted to you.  You don't want that.

Red cards are tough though.  Part of the efficacy of the red card is the immediacy of the impact.  You get a red card and then you leave.  There's no appeal or second opinion, you just leave.  So, ideally, if you were driving and you got a red card, your car would automatically drive you to your house and then shut off and refuse to start again for 24 hours.  In general, a red card would ban you from participating in whatever activity you were doing incorrectly for some period of time.  We'd have to figure out how we define certain activities.  If you got a red card for being a crappy tipper, would you be banned from eating for 24 hours or banned from that particular restaurant for a year?  Something else for the committee to consider.  

Anyway, I think we could only let people give red cards for pre-approved reasons.  If somebody does something you think should be a red card, but it isn't on the list, then you can't give the card.  You can give them a yellow card and suggest that the committee make the offense a red card, and then maybe it would be a red card in the future.  We'd all have to have some patience with the system at first while we worked out the kinks.  I promise it'll be worth it.

Erroneous red cards would be very bad.  If you're caught giving somebody a red card for something they didn't actually do, you would most likely have to serve significant prison time.  Same goes for ignoring a red card that has been appropriately issued to you. That's really the only way to keep people in line.  Everybody needs to respect the system or it won't work. 

Back to whether or not kids get cards.  I feel like they should.  Bad parenting isn't punished nearly enough in our society.  I think allowing kids to give red cards to their parents would really raise the bar a little bit.  Remember, you could only give red cards for pre-approved reasons, so there's a defense in place to keep kids from inappropriately using the cards against their parents.  I think for kids, instead of prison time for an erroneous red card, we would probably just have to take their cards away until they turned 18.  I think this would all work out just fine.

Once we get the system in place and we get a good working list of red card offenses, I think this is going to go really well.  The best part is, people are always complaining that Americans don't respect soccer enough, and we still won't, but now we can give those people yellow cards for complaining.

Boston Convert

As I'm writing this I'm getting ready for game 2 of the Rangers/Bruins series.  First of all, if you aren't watching the hockey playoffs, honestly, what's wrong with you?  Whatever you're doing instead just isn't nearly as important.

Anyway, as I've tried to figure out who I'm rooting for in this series, I've come to a shocking revelation about myself.  I think I'm becoming a Boston sports fan.  True story.  It seems ridiculous to just switch all rooting interests to a whole new town, but let's go through it one by one.

The Celtics are the easiest one.  I've always been a Celtics fan, except for that brief period in the 90's when there were only two basketball fan identities (Bulls fan or Bulls hater) and I was a Bulls fan.  My parents were never that into sports (except for my mom and the Rangers, and we'll get to them in a minute), so I inherited a lot of my rooting interests from my grandmother.  Because the Celtics are implicitly Irish, we rooted for Boston.

Sidenote: In hindsight, there also might be something to the fact that, in the 80's, the Celtics pretty much cornered the market on white basketball players.  Really...Bird, McHale, Ainge, Walton.  It's like a who's who of useful or better NBA white guys.  I don't know, I didn't really give that a lot of thought when I was 7.

In terms of hockey, I grew up an Islanders fan.  My grandparents live like 10 minutes from the Nassau Coliseum, and back when I was like 0-3 years old, the Isles were winning four straight Stanley Cups.  So that's a pretty formative experience.  A few years ago I disowned the Islanders because of their many many uniform transgressions.  Since then, I assume in response to my outrage, they went back to the classic uniform scheme and I've been back on board.  But, they're moving to Brooklyn soon.

I'm sorry, I'm not rooting for a hockey team from Brooklyn.  Especially after they change their name to the Hipsters or the Skinny Jeans or whatever and incorporate irony into their new uniforms.  No thank you.  Plus, I'm from Queens, I don't want to root for Brooklyn anyway.

And the Rangers and Devils?  Come on.  Listen, the Rangers suck.  And the Devils, they're even worse.  I had a girlfriend in college who loved the Devils, and even when someone I loved loved the Devils, I still fucking hated them.  They are perpetually unwatchable.  The uniforms are awful, and even though they don't play like they did in the 90's anymore, I can't watch them without seeing that awful neutral zone trap.  Boooooo!!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile, the Bruins have great uniforms, aren't from Brooklyn and aren't planning to randomly move to some other part of Boston just for fun.  I like the Bruins and I'm not having a hard time seeing myself getting on board with being a fan.  I mean, just look at Zdeno Chara.  He's like an angry giant on skates. Who doesn't want to root for an angry giant?  Also, they have a goalie named Tuukka.  Tuukka!  Come on, he has an extra K.  Everyone knows K is the best letter.  At least it is in Finland, or Sweden, or Denmark or wherever the fuck Tuukka is from.

Football is pretty easy too.  I've always kind of hated the New York football teams, and I haven't really kept that a secret.  In my football watching life I've bounced around from the Houston Oilers (until they moved) to the Tampa Bay Bucs (until they got new uniforms) to just being a fan of the NFL Redzone network (because it's seriously fucking awesome).  I can settle in with the Patriots.  I already have a Patriots jersey (although it hasn't been worn since September, and even then not by me, and the story of how I became the owner of a Patriots jersey is interesting, somewhat embarrassing, has very little to do with being a Patriots fan, and I'm not quite ready to tell it yet).

Oh, and did I mention the New York football teams are actually from New Jersey?  Yeah, that's a real thing.

Honestly, I'm not even sure why people have favorite football teams anymore.  It's like having a favorite character on a sit-com.  It's just a TV show.  When I watch How I Met Your Mother, I don't root for Marshall, I just enjoy the show.  I feel like having a strong rooting interest might ruin football for me, but I've never had one before, so I'm open to trying it.

But then there's the Yankees.  I grew up a Yankee fan.  I've always been a Yankee fan.  The '96 World Series was awesome.  And so were the other three they won when I was in college.  But the last one, honestly, the thrill just wasn't there anymore.  I've said this before.  Being a Yankee fan is exhausting.  Yankee fans only have two emotions, terrible disappointment when the Yankees don't win the World Series, and what could best be described as relief when they do.  To be honest, I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a Yankee game.  In some ways, my Yankee fandom has become like a bad relationship that I'm just too much of a wimp to get out of.

Speaking of bad relationships, I can't really imagine what it's like to be a Red Sox fan.  I'm not 100% sure it would really be more fun, but I'm 100% sure it wouldn't be less fun.  Typical relationship dilemma.  Stay with something familiar, or go try something new that isn't necessarily any better and just leaves you feeling like an idiot.  As you can probably tell from the fact that I'm going to die alone, I'm not very good at this.

Some other valid reasons to switch to Boston fandom:

- I live in Massachusetts now, so there are always Boston teams on my TV.  I mean, I could just watch and root against them.  That's essentially what I did with the Red Sox my first year here, but, to be honest, that wasn't a lot of fun.

- Boston girls are almost exclusively awesome.  New York girls are, frankly, kind of a mixed bag.  Don't make that face at me!  You know I'm right.  You've seen Sex and the City.  So if you're in a bar with half Boston girls and half New York girls, which side of the bar would you rather have a common rooting interest with?  Yeah, me too.  I've also found that Boston girls are significantly more likely to be into sports, so there's a better chance of them being in the bar to begin with.

- Aerosmith is from Boston.  And so are the Mighty Mighty Bosstones.  Who's from New York?  LL Cool J and The Ramones?  Similar question.  If you got invited to watch a game and hang out with famous music people, who would you pick?  Dicky Barrett and Steven Tyler or LL Cool J and whichever Ramone is still alive?  Again, yeah, me too.

Look, to be honest, I'm not sure if I can go through with the full conversion.  I'm still stuck on the Red Sox thing.  That's not an easy switch.  But I've already decided that I'm not buying the MLB extra innings package this season, the Yankees just aren't worth $40 a month to me anymore.  So I suppose I'll watch a summer of Sox baseball and see how I feel in September.  I'll keep you posted.

Marathon? Seriously?

If you've been following the news lately, you made have heard that the New York City marathon organizers are planning to go through with the marathon this Sunday even though 1) parts of the city have been underwater all week 2) thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers are still without heat or power and 3) any police, other public servants or volunteers that you might use for a marathon would be about a million times more useful in the Rockaways, on Staten Island or at any one of many many other hard hit locations.

At first I honestly thought this must be a joke or a miscommunication.  Maybe Mayor Bloomberg (who was actually doing really well with this until now) said something like "marathon?  are you fucking kidding me?  My city is underwater.  What kind of a stupid question is that?", but because people are stressed and probably weren't really paying attention, it somehow sounded like he said the marathon was actually still going to happen.  Apparently I was wrong.

Many of the people who read my blog already know me a little, but for those who don't, I grew up in Rockaway Park in Queens.  It was an amazing place to be a kid and really is a wonderful little town.  If you've never been there, you just wouldn't believe a place like it could exist within the borders of such a large and crowded city, but that's just one of the things that makes New York better than everywhere else.

I literally don't have a word for what Hurricane Sandy did to my home town.  Every picture and description I see is worse than the one before it.  It's worse than anything I could have imagined.  Now, the people there are tough and it's a great community and they'll rebuild, but in the mean time, it seems the city is going to have a marathon. 

Because it's really important, in this time of great tragedy, that a bunch of people run around the city for a few hours.  Who cares if people in the Rockaways and Staten Island and other parts of the city have no power and no heat?  Who cares if hundreds of homes were destroyed and thousands of people lost everything?  Fuck that shit!  That was like, five days ago.  I guess everybody just needs to get the fuck over it, right?

Listen, I understand that events bring money into the city, money that a recovering city needs, but that doesn't explain why they can't run a marathon on November 25th, or December 2nd.  Do it a month later and everybody still gets their money.  Too cold to run around outside that late in the year?  Really?  Do you remember last paragraph when I said people lost their houses?  If December 2nd is too cold for you to run, then you can run around the city by yourself sometime when the conditions suit you a little better. 

Now you can say I shouldn't be too hard on the actual runners.  They've trained for years and it isn't their decision.  I disagree.  Everybody makes a choice.  You can choose to not participate in this ridiculous farce.  You can choose to do something more productive with your time, like volunteer, or just donate to the Red Cross http://www.redcross.org/  See look, there's the link right there. 

I've seen some stories about people who are going to run the marathon and use it to raise money to donate to victims.  That's nice, but couldn't you just collect money for victims and not spend all day running around a decimated city?  Personally, I would much rather do that.  Running 26 miles is tiring and really hard.  When I was a kid my elementary school did a math-a-thon for St. Jude's hospital.  I suspect my grandma still would have given me a check for the sick kids even if I didn't bother actually doing the math.

And as for the mayor and the organizers of the marathon, I don't know enough different forms of the word fuck to properly address them.  The symbolism alone of the marathon starting by running away from devastated Staten Island should be enough to tell anyone with a brain what a bad idea it is to go through with it.  It's a good thing the rubble of my home town won't disrupt the marathon path, or they might have to run somewhere else.

You know, sometimes I get on here and rant about things that really bother me, but then I have to admit that there's no easy solution and it's not as simple as I'm making it sound.  Not this time.  Just do it later.  How hard is that?  Personally, I don't know why they can't just cancel it altogether and tell the people who would have spent money on the day of the marathon to just donate the money instead, but maybe that's asking too much.  I hope, at least, that this will convince everyone in New York that they can't ever vote for Bloomberg again.

I Have a Question for the NFL

Actually, I have a lot of questions for the NFL.  Like why are there teams in Jacksonville and Tennessee but no team in Los Angeles?  Or why do two New York teams play in New Jersey?  Or why haven't they castrated the Roethlisbozo yet?  Come to think of it, I don't know that they haven't done that last one.

So many questions, but the one that's been bothering me lately is this one.  Why does the NFL bother advertising?  Did you know football is back?  I do, because the TV told me so, over and over again.  It must be costing them millions in advertising.  Why bother?

Does the NFL think there are sports fans all over America who just haven't heard about this whole pro football thing?  Do they think that if they just get the word out, maybe one day their little league will be popular?  Or does the NFL think we forgot which day of the week football happens?  There has to be something better they can do with that money, like paying Brett Favre to go away forever. 
This "football is back" ad campaign makes it seem like the lock-out lasted for three years.  Nobody cares about the lock-out, we didn't miss anything except the stupid hall of fame game.  Stop trying to convince me to watch football.  Trust me, I'm already there.  Just leave me alone and I'll see you on Sunday.

My pre-season picks were pretty solid last year.  I nailed the NFC and Superbowl champion Packers.  As for the AFC, I didn't even have Pittsburgh in the playoffs, but I'm taking a mulligan on that one.  I knew the Steelers would be good, I just refused to pick the Bozo to win anything, a tradition I'll be continuing this year...

AFC playoff teams
1) New England
2) San Diego
3) Baltimore
4) Houston
5) New York
6) Cleveland

AFC playoff results
Baltimore over Cleveland (huge!)
New York over Houston
San Diego over Baltimore (everyone will pick Baltimore here)
New York over New England (again)
San Diego over New York

A Thought for Every AFC Team
Denver: There's no amount of money I wouldn't be willing to pay the Denver Broncos if they let me go the whole season without hearing about Tim Tebow. 

San Diego: I like the Chargers a lot this year.  If Bob Sanders can stay healthy, this could finally be their year.  That sounds like a big if, but Indianapolis always seems to be plagued with injuries, maybe it wasn't Bob's fault.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh: Why Cleveland?  I'm all in on Colt McCoy and all out on the Steelers.  Aside from hating the Bozo, Rashard Mendenhall had something like 700 touches last year.  He may disintegrate on the field at some point this season.

Indianapolis: Any season that starts with Kerry Collins is pretty much guaranteed to end in disappointment.

Buffalo: "Ladies and Gentleman.  With the first pick in the 2012 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select Andrew Luck, quarterback from Stanford University"

Kansas City: Opposing defenses should be terrified of Jamaal Charles, but they should feel exactly the opposite about Matt Cassel.

Miami: I think the Heat can be better in their second season togeth...what?  Dolphins? There's still a football team in Miami?

Cincinnati: It's so nice to have the Bengals back.  It's like a warm security blanket of football atrocity.

Houston: No defense + lots of offensive weapons surrounding a somewhat inconsistent quarterback = always fun to watch.  They have to make the playoffs one of these years, right?

Oakland: At least they have Nnamdi...oh wait...crap!

New England: It's hard to pick against New England, but I'm at the point where I need to see them win a playoff game again before I can get back on board. 

Tennessee: As much as Chris Johnson is the man, I'm not counting on a guy who 1) skipped all of training camp and 2) is smaller than I am to carry an otherwise forgettable team to the playoffs.

Baltimore: I really don't like watching the Ravens.  I got bored just trying to think of something to write here.

Jacksonville: Los Angeles is really nice this time of year...or, for that matter, any time of year.

New York: I would also pay almost any amount of money to anyone who could get Rex Ryan to shut up for two straight weeks.  Now let's go eat a goddamn snack!

NFC playoff teams
1) Green Bay
2) Atlanta
3) Philadelphia
4) San Francisco
5) New Orleans
6) Detroit

NFC playoff results
Detroit over Philly (not betting on Vick getting to the end of the season in one piece)
New Orleans over San Francisco
Green Bay over Detroit
Atlanta over New Orleans (really good game)
Green Bay over Atlanta (really REALLY good game, but Atlanta can't win in Green Bay in January)

A Thought for Every NFC Team
Detroit: I'm picking the Lions because I like them, but also because I'm afraid Ndamukong Suh is capable of finding everyone in America who didn't pick the Lions to make the playoffs and beating them all to death.

Green Bay: Here's why I like the Packers to repeat in the NFC.  Last year they won the superbowl, but they did it as a 6 seed, and they did it without some key players.  So now you have a defending champ that didn't have a dominant season, didn't get a home playoff game and has some players returning who didn't participate in the championship run.  I'm more willing to bet on a dominant 14-2 season from Green Bay than a complacent 8-8.

Washington: I'm not one of those people who says Redskins is an offensive name.  I should probably clarify that.  I'm not saying it isn't offensive, it probably is, I just don't care.  On a related note, if you have to watch Washington play this season, chances are you'll be pretty offended.

Tampa Bay: Much like the city of Tampa Bay itself, The Bucs' defense doesn't really exist.

St. Louis: I don't know why everyone likes the Rams so much.  They only won 7 games last year, and look at who they beat.  Calm down everybody.

New York: Something about the Giants this year just screams 8-8.

New Orleans: My fantasy team is counting on a breakout season from Jimmy Graham.  So...get on that Drew Brees.

Chicago: No team did more with less last year than Chicago.  This year, I predict no team will do less with less.

Philadelphia: I think people are forgetting that Philadelphia's defense was awful last year.  And even though Nnamdi is great, the Raiders were awful pretty much the whole time he was there. I guess I'm saying I'm not 100% sold on Philly.

Atlanta: I almost picked Atlanta to win the NFC.  I think the South is too tough for them to get a 1 seed and home field in the playoffs, and that's the only reason I think they lose in the championship game. 

Minnesota: I think Minnesota's success this season will mostly depend on whether or not the Favre exorcism really worked. 

Dallas: Last year I picked Dallas to win the East, and they started the season 1-7.  As a great Texan once said, "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you.  Fool me...you can't get fooled again."

Arizona: A few too many eggs in the Kevin Kolb basket for my liking.  Look what happened to Donovan McNabb after he left Philly.  I'm not saying they're the same quarterback, I'm just saying it may be easier to put up good numbers when you're throwing the ball 97% of the time and your running backs are basically props.

Carolina: Cam Newton still has to convince me that he isn't just a more likable JaMarcus Russell.

Seattle: Boooooooooooo!!! (I've actually always liked Tarvaris Jackson, but still)

San Francisco: Speaking of getting fooled again.  Listen, they play in an awful division that I think might somehow be even worse this year, Patrick Willis is still a monster and...well that's all I can think of.  But much like the Texans, this has to happen one of these years, right?

Superbowl Pick
In one of the most fun superbowls I'll ever see, Chargers 34, Packers 28.

Saint Derek of The Bronx

When Ken Griffey Jr. retired, I attempted to put his career into some kind of historical context. With Derek Jeter recently reaching 3,000 hits, I thought it would be a good time to do the same with him. Where does Jeter stand all-time? As a Yankee? As a shortstop?

I should probably mention a couple of things before we start. First, I always really liked Griffey Jr. while, in comparison, I've always been pretty ambivalent about Jeter. On the plus side, he's been around for five championships for my favorite team, and he was a key player (if maybe not the best player, but we'll get to that) for each winning team. On the down side, I rarely buy into intangibles and leadership (which we'll also get to) and "that guy is just a winner". In that way, Jeter is tailor-made for me to hate, if he played for any other team, he'd probably be my least favorite athlete ever.

Also, just to get it out of the way right now, when I talk about comparing Jeter to other shortstops, I'm not including A-Rod. First of all, Alex only played shortstop for half of his career, and secondly, steroids. Say what you want about Derek, but he'd probably make anyone's top ten list of "guys who seem clean". Could he have us all fooled? Sure, but he's never tested positive or publicly admitted using PED's and, at this point, that's the only fair standard we can use.

So, where do you put Derek all-time as a Yankee? I heard some radio moron yesterday saying he was definitely in the discussion as a top-five Yankee(actually, now that I think about it, that moron might have been Joe Girardi). Stop right there. The top four all time Yankees are set in stone; Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle and Dimaggio. Some people put Dimaggio ahead of Mantle, I continue to call those people Communists.

That only leaves one more spot in the top five, and we're already done. Even if you like Jeter more than the other guys from the past (Whitey Ford, Yogi, Munson, Mattingly, etc...for me, Whitey gets the 5th spot), you can't put Derek ahead of Mariano, who is the best relief pitcher of all time and was THE MOST important guy on each of Jeter's five championship teams, period.

So, top ten maybe? Now we're talking. I'd put Ford and Rivera 5th and 6th. Jeter beats Munson and, I think, Mattingly. Mattingly's four year run from 1984 to 1987 tops any four consecutive years Jeter had (1998-2001 or 2005-2008 being the two best four year runs for Jeter), but there's something to be said for longevity and, especially with the Yankees, championships.

The tough one for me is comparing Jeter to Yogi Berra. Yogi was a three-time MVP, and finished second in the voting two other times. Jeter's highest MVP finish was second, which he did once. Yogi was also part of 10 championship teams, compared to Jeter's five (to be fair, Jeter did it with a lot more teams in the league). On the other hand, Derek will most likely finish his career with something like 1,000 more hits than Yogi, including seven 200 hit seasons compared to Yogi's zero.

Tough call, but I like Jeter just a little more. A .300+ career average and well over 3,000 career hits are two statistical career milestones that Yogi can't touch, and I think it's enough. Plus, as I learned on the YES Network this weekend, Derek Jeter's sweat can be distilled and used as a cure for over 20 diseases...and counting. So there's that.

What about all-time shortstops? Shortstops are really hard to compare, because defense factors into the equation in a way that it doesn't necessarily do at other positions. For example, here are the career offensive numbers for a guy who is, as far as most people are concerned, easily a top five all-time shortstop:

.262 BA, 2460 hits, 28 HRs, 793RBI, 580SB

The low power numbers and high number of stolen bases point to a lead-off hitter, but this guy's .337 career OBP tells you he wasn't a great lead-off guy. These numbers belong to Ozzie Smith. As much as I trust offensive numbers, I don't really like the numbers they've made up to measure defense in baseball. For example, Ozzie's career range factor per nine innings was 5.22, Derek's is 4.11. Ozzie's is higher, but is that a lot higher or just a little higher? So, does Ozzie Smith go ahead of Derek Jeter on the all-time shortstop list. I say yes. Can I prove it? Not really.

As compared to other great shortstops, MVP's are Jeter's big Achilles heal (0 for Derek compared to 2 for Cal Ripken, 2 for Ernie Banks and 1 for Barry Larkin), but that evens out with championships, Derek's five are more than Ripken, Larkin, Banks, Alan Trammell and Ozzie Smith combined.

I like Arky Vaughn is a historical comparison for Jeter. Batting average (.318) and homeruns (96) pretty close when adjusted for era. If Vaughn had played a full career, he probably would have reached 3,000 hits. Ernie Banks makes a decent comparison too. They're different players, but Derek's high average, 3,000 hits and 5 championships puts him pretty close to Banks' MVPs and power. I'd probably place Derek fourth all-time, behind Honus Wagner, Banks and Smith, just in front of Vaughn and safely ahead of Larkin, Trammel and the stupendously overrated Ripken.

Guys like A-Rod and Robin Yount are hard to categorize by position, having spent plenty of time elsewhere on the field. Yount was great, but probably not quite where Jeter is. Omar Vizquel is tough for the same reason as Ozzie, but probably just a bit behind Derek. Also, unlike the rest of the these guys, Jeter is able to use his psychic powers, which continue to grow as long as Derek lives under the light of a yellow sun, to magically make his teammates better.

So what about those amazing leadership abilities? Let's get a few things straight. First of all, almost nothing in sports is less meaningful than being the captain of a baseball team. Calling Jeter "the Captain" is roughly the same as when a co-worker walks into your office and you say "hey chief". It doesn't make him an actual chief, he's still just some guy you work with.

Secondly, Derek's awesome leadership didn't build 1996-2000 Yankees, unless Gene Michael was actually Jeter in an old man costume, which I guess he could have been. Also, where was the Dear Leader when A-Rod showed up in town and everyone hated him for no real reason. Seems like that would have been an awesome time for the greatest leader in the history of the human race to step up and help out a new teammate.

So, here's the point. Derek Jeter is one of only 28 guys with 3,000 hits. I have him as a top five shortstop and a top ten Yankee, and I think it's fair to put him in the top 75 of all-time players, but that's the end of the story. He's a great baseball player, but he's just a guy, ya know? I always really wanted to like Derek, but I think my natural aversion to religion hurt me here. With so many other people making Derek out to be a god, it takes all my energy just to be willing to believe he exists.

The Curious Case of the Mets

In general, I don't believe in anything, or I at least try not to believe in anything. I try to know things, knowledge being belief in something that is true. We can't always know what is true, but we can try to find out.

So, I don't believe in god, or gods, or superstition. I don't believe in fate or destiny. I don't believe in ghosts or spirits. I know sometimes people can get lucky, but I don't believe a person, or a group, or a team can be consistently lucky or unlucky. I certainly don't believe in curses. And yet, there's the curious case of the New York Mets.

As a native New Yorker, the Mets were always somewhere on my TV. I would watch them whenever the Yankees were off, or rained out, or playing at a different time, or playing Baltimore for the 15th time and I just couldn't stand it anymore. I'm happy to root for the Mets as long as they aren't playing the Yankees (which, incidentally, should happen never unless they meet in the World Series; I hate interleague play SO MUCH).

I worry about the Mets. In the 24+ seasons since the 1986 World Series victory, here are some numbers on the B team in the nation's biggest market (which, of course, rightfully means they should be the best team in the National League):

11 losing seasons (including 103 losses in 1993, which put them 5 games behind the expansion Marlins)
11 different managers
4 playoff appearances
1 World Series appearance

And the playoff appearances...oh, the playoff appearances, almost tailor-made to slowly drive fans into insanity.

1988: The Mets go up 2-1 in the NLCS before losing two home games, only to win game six in Los Angeles and then ultimately get shut down by Orel Hershiser in a game 7 that was over after two innings.

1999: After falling behind Atlanta 3-0, the Mets fight back to make it a series with two one-run victories, including a 15-inning game 5 win in which they were down one going into the bottom of the 15th. Then, they lost game 6 by the score of 10-9 in extra innings after overcoming a 5-run first inning deficit.

2000: The Mets finally get all the way back to the World Series, only to have their pants pulled down on national television by a cross-town rival that simply had them outgunned. The Yankees never had a doubt, the Mets never had a chance.

2006: Game 7 against the spectacularly mediocre Cardinals. Down two, bases loaded, two outs. Carlos Beltran, easily the Mets' best player that season, watches somberly as strike three sails right on by, almost like he was thinking "OK, I've got him right where I want him, when he tries to throw strike four by me, I'm gonna hit it out of the park!".

What's wrong with the Mets? Why aren't they the best team in the National League, the one that New York deserves? Some people go right to ownership. As far as I'm concerned, the owner's only job is to provide money, and the Mets have been top 10 in payroll every year since 1986, including 2003 when they were second and still managed to lose 95 games. Say what you want about the Mets' ownership, they put up the cash.

Poor management then? Maybe, Omar Minaya made a lot of mistakes. Letting Willie Randolph, the best manager the team had since Davey Johnson (you heard me!), go in 2008 when the team was just one game under .500 was a huge blunder. But then, so was letting Davey Johnson, the most successful manager in Met history, go in 1990 when the team was 2 games under .500 just 42 games in. Omar was scouting for the Texas Rangers when that happened.

Omar signed a ton of bad contracts too. Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez were disasters. He overpaid for Carlos Beltran by at least 20 million dollars, and don't even get me started on Jason Bay. But Omar wasn't there for Bobby Bonilla, or Vince Coleman. He wasn't even the one who signed Kaz Matsui.

The Mets failed miserably, over and over again, to properly develop young talent under Omar Minaya. Lastings Milledge never panned out, and Fernando Martinez already looks pretty much ruined. Mike Pelfrey could have been an ace, but now it looks like he's rounding into a guy who can be the number 3 starter on a championship team.

But failure to properly handle prospects goes back 20 years for this franchise. Remember Gregg Jefferies? A constant disappointment with the Mets who left, spent a year toiling in Kansas City and then hit .342 and .325 in back to back years in St. Louis. I could fill this space just with names of talented guys who never panned out or good young players the Mets traded away (like Heath Bell, Scott Kazmir, Alex Escobar, Alex Ochoa, Bill Pulsipher, Milledge again just for fun, etc, etc, etc).

I've recently started to think the Mets' training staff may be to blame. How do you constantly have this many injuries to key guys? I understand Pedro Martinez was an injury risk when they signed him, everyone knew they wouldn't really get four full years from Pedro. Carlos Beltran seems to be falling apart, but maybe he's just getting older. Jason Bay played in at least 145 games every year since 2005, until last year. But maybe he's just getting older too. Maybe Jose Reyes is just injury prone. Maybe Johan Santana was always heading toward shoulder surgery. Maybe David Wright's recent back problem was just a freak thing. Maybe...maybe...maybe, but why are all these things happening to the same team?

I look at the Mets this year and I can't decide if they should go for the wild card or trade some key guys and start rebuilding. Currently, the Mets are two games over .500 and 7.5 games back of Atlanta in the wild card standings, and that's with, arguably, three of their best five players (Wright, Davis and Santana) on the DL, and a fourth one (Reyes) probably heading in that direction. If the Mets got all of those guys back by August 1st, and maybe added another pitcher (I'd love to see them add a #2 starter if they could find one), they could be a serious wild card contender.

On the other hand, this is probably their last chance to get something for Beltran, and they may have already missed the boat on getting something for Reyes while he was healthy. If they dealt Beltran, Reyes (if the injury isn't serious) and K-Rod, they could really stock a farm system that's currently running on empty. Additionally, the Mets (or Braves, or Diamondbacks, or Pirates or anyone else in the NL) have almost no shot at getting past the pitching in Philadelphia and San Francisco, so is it worth it for the Mets or anyone else to push knowing a playoff berth will ultimately end badly?

I think so. A healthy Met team, even with automatic outs at catcher and second base, can out-hit Philadelphia and San Francisco. If they were to add a legitimate #2 starter, that guy could join a healthy and fresh Santana, a solid #3 in Pelfrey and the emerging Dillon Gee or Jonathon Niese in a pretty formidable playoff rotation. You can't really count on the Mets' bullpen, but you can't really count on anyone's bullpen.

I said at the beginning of the season the Mets had "nobody believed in us" written all over them. That's even more true now with all the injuries. It's amazing what a competent manager can do with some talented players. I think the Mets should go for it, keep all the key guys and make one or two additions (namely, a starting pitcher. I've decided Chad Billingsley should be available. I'd suggest adding a second baseman, but I honestly can't think of one that might be available and worth anything).

If they can just get to the post-season, anything can happen, unless they're cursed. But even if they are cursed, they should still go for it. A cursed team can't win the World Series, but rebuilding won't help either, so they might as well have some fun before dumping another season into the black hole of losing. And I'll be rooting for them, because if they get to the World Series, I can't imagine they'll find the Yankees there. Just the thought of needing wins from Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia in October makes me a little queasy.

Inception

I recently had a very odd dream in which I was eating lunch in my college cafeteria (the school I went to, not the one at which I currently work) with various childhood friends who I haven't seen (except on Facebook, if that counts as "seeing") in anywhere between 13 and 18 years. I awoke from this dream at work, at approximately 3PM on a Friday. It took me a couple of minutes to realize that:
A) I don't sleep at work
B) the friend with whom I was excitedly sharing the details of the dream is no longer a co-worker and
C) my office isn't located in my grandparents' house.

These simultaneous realizations jarred me into the real world, where I found myself slowly waking up on a Sunday morning, comfortably tucked into my bed in my nicely air conditioned apartment. I had experienced the rare dream within a dream. I immediately decided that I would have to stop watching Inception whenever it appeared on HBO, as it was clearly starting to infect parts of my brain.

The rest of my day consisted of breakfast, or lunch, whatever you'd call it when you're eating right after you woke up, but it's happening at 1PM because you've been afflicted with the sleeping patterns of a small, nocturnal mammal. Then I read a book (seriously, I finished reading a book! The first book I actually sat down and read since I read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time sometime in 2004 or 2005). Then, some TV sports consisting of a Yankees game (thank you MLB extra innings) and NASCAR (sports pickins are slim in the summertime).

Then, Fox News Sunday. The first segment of the show was an interview with Republican presidential candidate and noted crazy person Michele Bachmann. The second segment was a brief interview, mostly about the budget negotiations, with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who proves his fiscal conservative bona fides by not spending money on superfluous letters for his name. As expected, we spent most of their collective half hour in Fantasyland (specifics in a minute).

How did it come to this? I imagine, at some point in our history, politicians and other public leaders spent their time saying things that were true, or that they at least believed to be true. Then, as politics became a career rather than a temporary state of public service, there was the natural migration toward pandering to voters, but that stopped working after a while. People are stupid and they don't even know what they believe half the time, and sometimes they start to believe that they don't like being pandered to. It's all such a hassle.

But then, somebody had an idea. I'm picturing Dick Morris and Karl Rove in a dimly lit laboratory somewhere in Washington D.C. The idea? Inception. If you haven't seen the movie, inception is a pretty simple concept. You plant an idea in a person's mind in a way that makes them think they had the idea on their own, thereby causing them to act on the idea as they would if it really were their own.

Here's how it works:
Step 1: Introduce a relatively simple, but emotionally charged talking point into the public debate and/or news cycle. You can do this yourself, but it's even better if you can use your favorite shill "commentator" in the media ("remember, if we want this to work, we have to use words Sean Hannity would use, nothing over one and a half syllables").

Step 2: Wait to see if the idea takes hold. It's important to use an idea that people would want to believe, or an idea that would give them a "logical" excuse to feel a way they already feel for irrational reasons. Example: Gay marriage destroys families.

Sidenote: If the idea doesn't properly take hold, just stop saying it. And when you run for President, tell everyone you never said it, even as news people show you video of you saying it.

Step 3: Once the idea takes hold, do some polling. If you've done your job correctly, the "American people" will parrot your idea back to you in the form of poll answers. The media will then do your bidding and report these poll answers as "news". For example, this just in from CNN..."like, zOMG you guys! A majority of the American people don't want to raise the debt ceiling, and this is important, even though most of them have no idea what that means." OK, maybe that isn't "just in" from CNN, but it sounds like a headline they'd use.

So then, let's say you're Michele Bachmann, and you go on some Sunday show and the sad looking man in the suit asks you about same sex marriage. You can proudly say you don't agree with it. But not because you're a bigot. You aren't a bigot, you're a good person, just look at all your foster children. No, you have to be against gay marriage, because you're just standing up for the American people, who are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting the family, which we all know is constantly under threat of gay destruction (sidenote #2: I have a number of homosexual or bisexual friends, I keep forgetting to ask them why they hate families so much, I should write that down so I remember).

Or, let's say you're Jon Kyl. You have to defend the tax cuts demanded by your corporate overlords and the other various super-rich people who own you (and your entire party, and the other party too, and really the whole country...sigh). Well, that sounds pretty indefensible. But, luckily, your party has been seeding the public debate for 30 years with ideas like "tax cuts create jobs" and "tax cuts actually increase revenue through the magic power of tax cuts" and "tax cuts equal freedom". That last one is especially insidious because it equates something tangible and easily given (tax cuts) with something intangible and impossible to give, something that must occur naturally or be earned (freedom).

So then, Jon Kyl can go on Fox News Sunday and suggest the President wants to put an anchor around the neck of the economy with his evil plan to slightly raise the top marginal tax rate. It's not fair to punish success by making people pay taxes. Seriously you guys!!! It's, like, so unfair!

I know I'm picking on Republicans again, but that's because they're so much better at this. It's like picking on Barry Bonds for (allegedly) using steroids. I'm sure plenty of other guys you never heard of (allegedly) used steroids, but you've still never heard of them, so who cares?

Anyway, I think I have some possible solutions to this problem:
1) We could all try being a little smarter and better informed (just kidding).
2) We could hook elected officials and people running for office up to lie detectors whenever they're speaking publicly (I actually really like this one, it would quickly turn any debate, speech or TV appearance into a game show we all watch to see if the lie detector goes off).
3) We could stop letting corporations and rich people buy politicians legally through campaign contributions (once again, just kidding, the Supreme Court is always right and legalizing bribery was an awesome idea).
4) We could start electing bears to run the country for a while. What they would lack in logic, reason and writing skills, they would make up for in mauling our enemies and stealing honey from other countries. What's that? You say a bear can't be President? Well sir, I say that makes you a bear racist.

I seem to have lost my train of thought. Where was I going with this? Oh yeah, I was going back to where I always go. I wish politicians would stop telling me what the American people want. First of all, I'm an American person, and I almost never want whatever it is they're telling me I want. Secondly, I don't care what the other American people want, because, for many reasons, including the one I just theorized about, what they want is usually stupid.

I'm tired of asking for a show of hands whenever we have a problem. Michele Bachmann was making the point yesterday that the government has a responsibility to protect the American people from same sex marriage, because a majority of them don't want it. No moron! The government has a responsibility to protect LGBT people from the dumbass majority trying to withhold rights from them for no good reason. Which is why, as always, New York is the best state ever.

Mosques and Marriage

I haven't been writing a lot lately. It's possible I've just run out of new ways to call people stupid. It's also possible that the summer heat has melted some of the outer parts of my brain and left me less creative. I've decided that the second possibility is more likely. First of all, I'll never run out of ways to call people stupid. Second of all, it's been a little cooler this week and, voila! Here I am.

I've seen two seemingly unrelated stories in the news lately to which I've had, essentially, the same reaction. The first is this thing about the mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site. Before I get into this, here are a couple of disclaimers:

Disclaimer #1: I'm from New York. If you're also from New York (or at least long island), then whatever opinion you have about this, no matter how much I might disagree with it, is perfectly valid in my eyes. On the other hand, if you're not from New York, if you've never called The Only Real City In The World home, then I couldn't possibly be less interested in what you think about this. Be quiet Sarah Palin, worry about your own town's problems (I don't what problems they have in Alaska, bears? too much snow? ice road trucker camera crews eating all the moose jerky?)

Disclaimer #2: We've got some religion involved in this issue, so anyone who talks about it winds up being labeled anti-muslim or pro-muslim. I assure you that I feel the same way about islam that I feel about all other invisible friends and space gods.

Anyway, I agree with what the President said about the ground zero adjacent mosque on Friday. Not only do I agree with what he said, but I love how he said it. He used his condescending, "why are you people so stupid sometimes" tone that is absolutely my favorite thing about him. Of course private citizens have the right to build a mosque on privately owned land. At the same time, other private citizens have the right to argue and protest about what they do and do not want built in their neighborhood.

Now, if I were a guy looking to build a mosque, would I build it two blocks from the World Trade Center? Probably not. This sounds like a poorly thought out plan, right? I mean, did these people honestly think this would go off without a hitch? I don't know if they've noticed, but people in New York are still pretty touchy about the whole 9/11 thing, and even though we know (well, most of us know) terrorist groups don't represent all muslims, building a mosque two blocks from the giant whole in the ground left by muslim terrorists really does strike me as a dumbass idea. If your goal is building a community center focused on fostering interfaith relations and understanding, this really isn't a good start.

I think, if you live in New York, and this thing stirs up old negative feelings and opens up an old wound for you, or maybe pours salt on a wound that hasn't even healed yet, and you feel like it shouldn't happen, that's a perfectly valid concern, and I think you should voice it. Just don't get mad when elected officials don't have your back. They took an oath to protect the Constitution, not our feelings.

If it seems like my personal opinion on this near ground zero mosque thing is a little hard to nail down, that's because it's one of those things I don't really have a strong opinion about. I sort of don't care. I know I'm supposed to, I don't though.

The second story was the overturning of proposition 8 in California, clearing the way for legal same-sex marriage in the state, ya know, at least until the next court rules, and then the next one. This story is different from the first in that there are no valid opinions on the other side. Of course homosexuals have the right to marry each other and it is the job of the courts to protect the rights of minorities from the opinions of the majority. Even the Republicans seem to mostly get it at this point, they've been pretty quiet since this court decision happened.

Still, some people have expressed their usual outrage about the dangerous gays and their fabulous marriages, and that brings me to how these two stories go together in my head. Some people just don't like homosexuals. They say same-sex marriage threatens opposite-sex marriage, but even the lawyers for Prop. 8 couldn't come up with a story for how that might actually work. They claim they're just looking out for children, but when you take an argument like that into a courtroom, judges generally want to see some of that evidence stuff. Tough break. Really, they just don't like homosexuals.

Similarly, some of the people who are arguing against the almost at ground zero mosque just don't like muslims. I've acknowledged that others arguing against the mosque have valid opinions, but some of them just don't like muslims (when I say "some of them", I'm talking about the outsiders from Alaska and Texas and everywhere else other than New York who suddenly give a crap about all the New York elites they usually hate so much).

My point is, if you don't like muslims or homosexuals, just say that. I wouldn't call it a valid opinion, but it's your opinion and you're stuck with it. And, if you're truthful with us about why you're against these things, then we can have an honest debate with your ignorant ass.

PS...this was a pretty heavy topic, so I felt like throwing in some mostly unrelated comic relief at the end. The title for this post reminded me of the theme song for Married With Children. On Thursday, a guy I work with was talking about cool new shoes he wanted to buy and my other co-workers seemed to be split on the idea. I took a look at the shoes he was talking about and, as it turned out, he was getting ready to by the shoes that Al Bundy invented after seeing god wearing them, only without the built in socks. This may not be comic relief for everyone, but if you were a big Married With Children fan, like my dad, you will laugh your ass off if you haven't seen these before. Enjoy http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/

I Know

I know I need more hockey in my life.
I know I could train a chimp to do the job of a baseball manager.
I know my chimp-managed team would win at least 90% of the games it would have won with a regular human manager.
I know some team should try that soon.
I know the Raiders releasing Jamarcus Russell doesn't really qualify as news.
I know Joe McKnight in the 4th round was the steal of the NFL draft.
I know Santonio Holmes has elite talent.
I know Ladainian Tomlinson can still find the end zone, even though
I know he can't get there as quickly as he used to.
I know the Jets replaced the awful work of Lito Sheppard with a really good trade and a first round draft pick.
I know the Jets look just good enough to totally crush their fans next season.
I know "los Suns" is not how you say "the Suns" in Spanish.
I know if we really wanted to keep illegal immigrants from Mexico out of the country, we'd stop lining the boarder with our stupidest states.
I know the Jazz can't beat the Lakers, but
I know the Spurs can.
I know there's is a 0% chance of me seeing Sex and the City 2, and
I know there are some undeniable benefits of being single.
I know you get tazzzzzed if you run onto the field in Philadelphia.
I know Philly fans have been collectively asking for it since about 1968.
I know I should actually say tasered, but the z's add some onomatopoetic value.
I know if you don't want to be tasered, you should just stay in your seat and not be a douchebag.
I know anyone who thinks that cop did something wrong should be tasered.
I know the Baltimore Orioles should try tasering some of their players, it couldn't hurt.
I know pimpin' ain't easy, but
I know it's necessary.
I know I still don't care about the world cup, and
I know ESPN can't make me.
I know Ubaldo Jimenez is leading the National League in ERA.
I know it's not a fluke.
I know the Hartford Whalers should move back to Hartford.
I know people here in Connecticut think college sports are real sports, and
I know they also think all the pizza here doesn't taste like crap.
I know the Red Sox will get a lot better, and
I know they'll probably still finish third.
I know Lebron James has an elbow booboo, because he is apparently also the king of passive-aggressive whining.
I know the chances of Lebron playing for the Knicks next season are roughly equivalent to the chances of me playing for the Knicks next season.
I know Steve Nash is almost as overrated as John Stockton was. You heard me.
I know I'd take Allen Iverson over either one of those guys.
I know Floyd Mayweather Jr. is an even better fighter than you think he is.
I know once you grow up, Cinco de Mayo is just another crappy day.
I know the same can be said for Thursday nights.
I know Dwight Howard should spend less time bitching about the refs and more time practicing free throws.
I know the refs wouldn't foul Lebron James out of a playoff game if he carried a baseball bat onto the court with him and committed six aggravated assaults.
I know Lebron hasn't accomplished anything that should make him more special than Dwight.
I know NASCAR is far more watchable than it has a right to be.
I know hockey needs to get back on ESPN, like right now. Seriously, I just went down the list in my head of sports, pseudo-sports, games or anything else that might be considered a sport-like competition. I was trying to find the next most popular thing, after hockey, that I never see happening on ESPN. You know how far I got? Chess! Come on!
I know the Red Wings can come all the way back against San Jose.
I know they probably won't.
I know we need more Canadian hockey teams.
I know everyone should be watching ESPN's 30 for 30 series.
I know you can't win a championship if Dirk Nowitzki is your best player.
I know Barry Zito is 5-0 with a 1.49 ERA.
I know I would have bet everything I have against ever typing that last sentence.
I know horse racing is stupid.
I know Tiger Woods is still the best golfer in the world.
I know I'm sick and tired of these monkeyfightin' snakes on this monday-to-friday plane.
I know we're 27 games in and I still can't look at Nick Johnson's mustache without laughing.
I know David Ortiz is done.
I know I thought that this time last year too.
I know the Orlando Magic haven't lost a playoff game yet.
I know cheerleaders would work for baseball.
I know satan wasn't really sent to hell by god, he's just hiding there from Chuck Norris.
I know the Knicks are still an embarrassment, and
I know Isaiah Thomas should never be allowed back into New York City under any circumstances.
I know being a Yankee fan means I'm supposed to love Joe Torre and Derek Jeter, and
I know I just can't do it.
I know nothing about cricket.
I know Jimmy Clausen was the best QB in the draft.
I know hockey needs more fighting and less warm weather.
I know I need less warm weather too.
I know Mike Tyson doesn't get enough credit for how good he was in his prime.
I know Larry Holmes doesn't either.
I know MTV invented reality television as we know it.
I know MTV should be punished somehow for that, no fine would be too big.
I know Herm Edwards would make a good college coach.
I know it's hard to hold a candle in the cold November rain.
I know teams shouldn't be allowed to change their jerseys/logos without some kind of fan approval process.
I know Stephen Strasburg is the real deal.
I know the Nationals will find a way to screw it up.
I know I still like the Blackhawks to win the cup.
I know this turned out better than I thought it would.

Disappointment

Before I get into this, a quick Oscars note. I could stay on topic by manufacturing some disappointment over a few of the winners, but I really wasn't disappointed. The Hurt Locker was an awesome movie and I'm glad it won (if that other movie about blue people, which I refuse to see or mention by name, had beaten The Hurt Locker for best picture, I would have done 5 blogs complaining about it). Sure, I would have liked to have seen that girl from Precious win, just because she seems really nice and it might have made Oprah so happy she would have given us all cars, but I like Sandra Bullock so I can't even really complain about that. And yes, 500 Days of Summer was easily my favorite movie of the last year, and it didn't get nominated for anything, but that has more to do with there not being a comedy category than anything else. So I was really pretty fine with the Oscars. Oh well. Anyway, onto things that do disappoint me.

Everyone knows New York is the best city in the world. It's an undisputed fact. Being from somewhere else doesn't mean you're from somewhere that sucks, it just means you're from somewhere that's less awesome than it could be. Like a cheeseburger without bacon, or a gun without bullets, or a milkshake without bacon, really anything without bacon is a solid example here. I was in the middle of a thought, now I'm just thinking about things I could add bacon to, where was I? Oh yeah, my hometown is great. That's why I'm so disappointed in New York politics lately.

I submit that all these problems started with New York's Senators. No scandals there, but I wasn't impressed with either of them. I once heard someone (Jon Stewart maybe) refer to Chuck Schumer as a human strip mall. I'm still not sure exactly what that meant, but it sure sounds right. Senator Schumer used to visit the university I worked at in New York sometimes and give little speeches. I remember always being underwhelmed.

The other Senate seat currently belongs to someone named Kirsten. That's really all I know about her, but I had a friend named Kirsten when I was a kid, so Senator Kirsten is plus one with me so far. But her predecessor, Hillary Clinton, was another disappointment for me. A carpetbagger from Arkansas and Washington who was clearly using the state as a stepping stone to a run for the White House. We elected her because we knew her name and it had a D next to it. I thought New Yorkers were smarter than that.

Now, you could look at both of those elections and say they weren't really so bad, and you'd probably be right. But I don't know, maybe if we had examined these two little mistakes more closely, we could have avoided the rest of this nonsense.

Eliot Spitzer wasn't really a disappointment (at least not for me) so much as he was an embarrassment. Governor Spitzer liked whores. I don't like whores, but some people do, and that's really between them and their wives. I mean, it's not like it's a crime. What? It is a crime? Oh yeah, that's right. OK, so maybe a slightly disappointing embarrassment.

Wait, the voice in my head wants to know how I can say I don't like whores if I've never tried one. That's an interesting point, voice in my head. But I have a somewhat related counterpoint. I've never tried hepatitis either, but I'm fairly certain I wouldn't like it. Hey, voice in my head! How come other people have a conscience that tries to get them to do good things but you're always doing things like trying to get me to try a hooker or betting me I can't drink a whole bottle of Jack Daniels on St. Patrick's Day in college without blacking out (mission accomplished, by the way)? The voice doesn't have an answer, that's what I thought.

Spitzer's shameful resignation ushered in the David Paterson era, which has been like a Lollapalooza of unethical behavior. On the main stage, there was his immediate admission of cheating on his wife, followed by his admission to trying almost every drug ever invented. And just as the main stage show was winding down, we found out that he allegedly used state police to intimidate a woman who was making accusations against one of his staffers. Oh, and did I mention he's also legally blind? Blindness isn't funny, but you have to see the irony in a blind Governor so blatantly misusing officers of the justice system.

What actually got me going on this are the commercials I've been seeing about this stupid soda tax they've proposed in New York. I know, they already tax cigarettes and alcohol and 17 other things that people like even though they're bad for us. That doesn't mean I have to like it. How does the awesome, cool state become the no smoking in bars, soda tax state?

I should mention, at this point, that I won't make fun of that Massa guy from the 29th district. For one thing, New York's 29th district could easily be called northern Pennsylvania, it barely counts. Also, what I've heard so far about what he supposedly did doesn't really sound that bad. Most importantly, that dude has cancer, so I think I should leave him alone.

OK. So far, I can't really be disappointed in the voters. They haven't voted on the soda thing yet, and even if I could blame the Governors on them, I could just blame it on the voters from the weird upstate part of New York, and not the good part where the people are. Is there anything specific to the city that can be reasonably blamed on voter stupidity?

Well, how about Charlie Rangel? It would be easier to list all the House ethics rules he isn't accused of violating. And Congressman Rangel's been re-elected something like 52 times. Specific to the city? Check. Voter stupidity? Probably not. Even with the story out there for weeks, it's still a little hard to get your head around exactly what the Congressman did. I'm not sure you can blame voters for electing him when it was still a secret.

Oh, I got it! Bloomberg! Mayor Mike ignored his term limit and then bought an election, which the good people of New York were more than happy to let him do. Yeah, that's not good. Bloomberg's the first non-Democrat I've mentioned. It's not that I'm intentionally picking on the Democrats. New York Republicans are no picnic. Peter King is a New York Republican, he's also completely out of his mind.

You can say other states are just as bad, maybe even worse. We know South Carolina is a mess. Mark Sanford is still the Governor there (seriously, I swear I'm not joking). And there's Minnesota. They've got Michelle Bachmann, who's crazy enough all on her own, but they've also got Al Franken and they had Jesse Ventura. What's wrong with Al Franken? One day, maybe I'll make a big list of rules to live by, like Leroy Jethro Gibbs. When I do, one of the rules will definitely be, "if the best option you can find for Senator is a stand-up comedian, look harder".

But that's sort of my point. Disappointment is all about expectations. I know New York isn't any worse than many other states, but that's not good enough. New York is supposed to be the best, the Empire state, home of the greatest city in the world. Now, it seems, New York is no better than anywhere else. That's a disappointment.

I'm not doing this to bash New York. My home state needs an intervention. How about Governor Giuliani? Hear me out. I know Rudy's gone pretty crazy lately, but I think it was leaving New York that turned him crazy, and I know how he feels. When he was the Mayor, he was a little crazy, but he was our kind of crazy. Oh, but he had scandals too. That's the sad part, I could spend the next year doing nothing but searching for a truly clean politician and still never find one. So, I'm still going with Governor Giuliani. It's just my first idea, I'm open to better ones. Maybe we need someone who would come with expectations so low, he couldn't possibly disappoint us. Hmmm, Harry Reid should be available after November.