Mitt can't have it both ways

Finally recognizing that America is not a perfect nation when it comes to prejudices and realizing that he has a severe handicap when it comes to the race for president, Mitt Romney on Thursday gave a major speech - being called by some the most important speech of the campaign - addressing the fact that he is, in case you didn't know, Mormon.

Romney said, "If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States." He also added that for him to explain or justify his beliefs would go against the wishes of our founding fathers, rightly pointing out that there is no religion test for president. Finally, he said that "No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion."

These are indeed noble statements. The president does not serve God, he serves the constitution. His oath is taken on a Bible, but he swears to uphold not the Bible but the Constitution. That Constitution includes the separation of church and state. And, of course, there are only three requirements to be president, and none of them have anything to do with religion.

So on the surface, Romney's statements seem to laudable. And I wholeheartedly agree that his being Mormon should not preclude him from being president.

I do, however, have a problem with hypocrites, and with this speech, Romney has shown how big of one he is.

I find it pretty disgusting that a man who says that the church should not mettle in the affairs of government is also running for president on a platform that includes being anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, two stances that have their grounding solely in the Bible, not in U.S. law.

(Sidenote for my conservative friends. I challenge you to find me one place in the United States Constitution that would be a basis for banning gay marriage. The Bible does not count as its laws have no legal standing in the United States and thus has no bearing on U.S. law.)

Romney has also said in the past, "We need a person of faith to lead this country." Now, to me that sounds like he believes the U.S. president should belong to a religion of some sort. So why is he all of a sudden asking the American people not to judge him solely on the basis of his religion?

Mitt, why is it not okay for people to say you can't be president because of the religion you practice, but you apparently feel free to judge people who practice no religion? Or rather, it's not cool for someone to say, "He's Mormon, he can't be president," but it's completely okay to say "He's atheist, he can't be president."

The best part is, the hardest people for Romney to convince are going to be white evangelicals - aka, his base! In an AP/Yahoo poll in November, 56 percent of them said they had reservations about voting for a Mormon. This is the crucial group for Romney; white evangelicals carried Bush to the White House - twice - and gave the GOP long-held majorities in Congress from 1994-2006.

But I'm not surprised. Romney is asking for openness and tolerance from a group that has made intolerance its national platform the past 25 years.

So be careful who you reach out to Mitt. You're right - you shouldn't be judged just because you're a Mormon. But you're trying to have it both ways. You're asking people to be open to your religion when at the same time you've been running a campaign dominated by religious issues, for a party who's base wants to turn America into a Christian theocracy.

That makes you a hypocrite, and for that you should be judged.

Was it worth it, George?

Who says American's aren't paying a price for the war? The Congressional Budget Office this week reported that the cost of the Iraq war over the next decade is $2.4 trillion - or $8,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. And while the collective monetary burden we will be sharing is nothing compared to the sacrifices of those with family members serving in the armed forces, the amount is staggering. Start thinking about on what we could have spent that money over the past four-plus years, and you get a painful picture of this president's mixed-up priorities.

For example, the National Priorities Project estimates that over 8 million teachers could have been hired for the cost of the war, or over 22 college million scholarships provided. That's no surprise: When you start to think about the number 2.4 trillion, you begin to realize how much it really is. And then you start to wonder about not just the monetary cost, but the opportunity cost of the war.

How many people could we have insured, so that people without health insurance stop burdening those with it? How many schools could we have built to give more childen a better chance? How many more police officers and firefighters could have been hired, so that our cities could be as safe as possible?

How much of that money could have been spent to put down the national debt, which was projected to be gone in our lifetime before Bush took office but has since ballooned due to his economic policy of slashing taxes while starting wars? How much of that money could have been put into biochemical research and development, to help America regain its footing in the world of science and develop alternatives to oil? How much could have been spent developing an economic policy that rewards businesses that provide a living wage, rather than outsource to third-world countries and hire illegal immigrants?

With that kind of money, how strong could we have made the bridges in Minnesota, or the levees in New Orleans?

When you factor in the non-monetary costs of the war - less American security, more terrorists, and diminished American leadership and prestige in the Middle East and around the world - the Iraq war starts looking less like a net-negative and more like an all-negative. It starts looking like perhaps the single-worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States.

And when you come to that conclusion, there remains only one question: Was it worth it, George?

Other, more entertaining, notes

On a lighter note, update on me: I moved into my new apartment in Pleasanton last Friday. It's a cool place with only one drawback - it's adjacent to the railroad tracks. I'm starting to get used to the trains going by all the time, though (Here comes one now!). Waiting for the roomate to move in, since he's providing the bulk of the furniture...

Scrubs began its final season last night, which I unfortunately missed since our DVR hasn't been hooked up in the new place yet and I don't have a VCR. Some people laugh when I say this is one of my favorite shows, because I think it's been so mistreated by NBC that it's become somewhat of a joke among TV fans who don't watch it. The simple fact is that when Friends, Frasier, and Will and Grace ended their runs on NBC's Thursday night comedy block, Scrubs, which then became one of the network's longest-running sitcoms, was abandoned to ever-changing, less-watched nights of the week, and then relegated to a mid-season replacement while newer, less proven shows were fast-tracked to the glory of "Must-See-TV." And while those shows, such as Joey and Coupling, were failing miserably, Scrubs was garnering Emmy nominations every year and even won four Humanitas prizes.

NBC last year finally put Scrubs, in its comedy block, but only as a last resort (it had been originally slated again as a mid-season replacement). The network runs it at 9:30, claiming it drains viewers, which is ironic because the fact that NBC never gave it a fighting chance is the reason why nobody watches it. It's a shame, because it will probably be regarded as one of the better comedies created. It deserves to go out strong, so if you're a fan of the other NBC Thursday comedies, do yourself and the show a favor by sticking around after The Office.

Finally, if I was still on the East Coast working at Manhattan College, I would have definately planned my fall travel such that I would have ended up in Scranton, Pa. this weekend.

I'm (officially) published

Okay, so it's not the most exciting story in the world, but I'm pretty stoked to have my first article in a professional paper. Hopefully more to come, but in case you're interested:

What's it worth? Find out at area coin show

30 Rock My World

Tonight, NBC is officially on notice as the second season of 30 Rock kicks off. I'll forgive you if you didn't watch it last season (but just barely) but now there are no excuses. This is the best sitcom on television, and you should be paying attention.

Emmy voters were. They just awarded 30 Rock the Emmy for Outstanding Comedy, or as I prefer to call it this year, the "Arrested Development Memorial Emmy." This award is apparently give out to the show with the highest value (critical reception) per capita (viewers). Upon accepting the award, show creator Tina Fey (of Saturday Night Live fame) thanked "our dozens and dozens of viewers."

For those of you who aren't familiar, 30 Rock is a quirky, fast-paced re-creation of Fey's SNL days. She stars as Liz Lemon, the head writer and show runner The Girly Show, an NBC sketch comedy. Alec Baldwin co-stars as her ultra-capitalistic boss Jack Donaghy, who determines that the show doesn't have a wide enough audience and promptly hires the unpredictable and presumably crazy movie star Tracy Jordan (Tracy Morgan), who's claim to fame is mega-comedy hits such as "Who Dat Ninja?". Liz is forced to deal with the fallout, as well as a motley crew of eccentric staff members.

Like Arrested and other viewer-starved shows before it, 30 Rock isn't your traditional sitcom. The dialogue is sharp, includes frequent cultural references, and comes at you fast and without a laugh track. Frequent cutaways are used, not as sight gags a la Family Guy, but as clever ways to keep you on your toes.

Fey and Morgan are wonderful, but it's Baldwin's breathy, domineering passive agressiveness that steals the show. Baldwin brings the same deadpan delivery to Jack Donaghy that convinced SNL producer Lorne Michaels to give him a standing invitation to host the show whenever he wanted. Here, he is a comedic gem.

Arrested won an Emmy its first season as well, had its episodes cut back in the second, and was finally cancelled by ratings-hungry FOX after the third. NBC has a chance to prove they're not FOX by keeping this show going. They've got a good track record: both Seinfeld and The Office were ratings flops in their first seasons before being salvaged by savvy network execs.

All said and done, 30 Rock is the best show you're not watching. But tonight is your chance: 8:30 on NBC. Perhaps you'll like it so much that, as Tracy Jordan says, you'll want to "take it behind the middle school and get it pregnant."

Or maybe you'll just laugh.

Why is this always news?

Why is this story about a landslide in La Jolla national news? Some people may have heard me complain about this before, but it seems every time as few as 2 or 3 upscale homes are threatened with destruction by landslide it makes headlines all over. This was a link on the front page of MSNBC.com. My guess is at least some of the local news channels will lead with this story tonight (or at least put it in their first 10-15 minutes) even though the story is 9 hours away in San Diego.

Yes, it's always tragic when someone loses their home. But these are people with plenty of money and good insurance who chose to live on a cliff. I don't want to sound indifferent to their loss of property, but aren't there more important stories to cover? Maybe of people who happen to live in poor neighborhoods that lose their homes...

Crazy Base World

Some time ago John McCain, a frequent guest on The Daily Show, was asked by Jon Stewart, "You're not going into the crazy base world are you?" McCain laughed and replied, "I'm afraid so."

McCain is one of The Daily Show's more popular guests and in addition to his candor is known for sometimes playing along with Stewart's jests, something most politicians don't do. I thought this was one of those times.

There was a time, a few years ago, if you had told me John McCain would be the Republican nominee for president in 2008 I would tell you that there was a good chance of me breaking ranks to vote for him. No more. Now it seems that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" is headed directly into the Crazy Base World, and has no intentions on turning back.

A couple weeks ago McCain declared that, despite his lifelong membership in the Episcopal Church, he was actually Baptist, despite never having been baptized as such. Today, McCain said that he would prefer a Christian president over one of a different faith, and called being Christian "an important part of our qualifications to lead."

It's bad enough that Mr. McCain - previously known as a maverick in his party - is pandering to the Bible Belt base of the GOP by suddenly having a religious conversion to the denomination that just happens to dominate the South, but now he seems to be insinuating that there is a religious test for the presidency.

Last time I looked at the U.S. Constitution, there were indeed qualifications for being president. Religious preference, however, was not one of them. For McCain to suggest such is simply incredulous.

The main issue here is that I don't think McCain actually believes it. Coming from Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, this statement, while still false, would make more sense because those men have shown themselves to be products of an environment which glorified Christian values as synonymous with American values.

For McCain, who has previously called right-wing conservatives such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell "instruments of hate," it's nothing more than political pandering. And that's a John McCain I would never vote for.

Bonds' last game as a Giant just like the last 15 years

Giants fans know not to expect much from Barry Bonds besides his on-the-field brilliance. Not because he's not capable of giving more, but because he's spent the past 15 years telling San Francisco fans how much he loves them while simultaneously refusing to be anything remotely close to an affable guy.

He's spent the last 15 years wowing us on the field. He's the all-time home run leader, the single-season home run leader, and the only player ever to have 500 home runs and 500 steals. He's also spent the last 15 years sulking in the clubhouse, attracting negative media attention, alienating his teammates, and giving a metaphorical middle finger to the Bay Area press. the concept of going above and beyond to be more than just a great player is foreign to him. So is it any surprise that Bonds' last game as a Giant on Tuesday was more of the same?

No, of course not. But even the most self-centered of people usually know that there are times to suck up your pride and do something that's more for others than for you. Apparently though, Bonds doesn't. Tuesday's bittersweet finale included three forgetful at-bats from Bonds and a tip of the hat to the crowd. After the game, the fans endured an 11-3 loss for a video tribute after the game and the expectation that Bonds would take the field for one last curtain call. Bonds' teammates held off on retreating to the locker room after the blowout to throw autographed balls into the stands. It was San Francisco's last chance to acknowledge their star, and their star's last chance to acknowledge San Francisco.

One problem though. Turns out Bonds left the ballpark somewhere around the eighth inning. Despite the exceptional circumstances, Barry couldn't bring himself to stay another hour for the fans who have given him so much over the years, and who the week before he referred to as "family."

This is how it's gone for San Francisco since 1993. Bonds has brought some exciting moments, but at a price. He hit most of his milestone home runs at AT&T Park, but he also brought the wrath of sports fans and media across the country home to McCovey Cove as speculation swirled that those home runs were fueled by steroids. He brought the Giants to within five outs of a World Series championship, but he was also one of the major contributors to a defensive meltdown that stole victory out of the Giant's hands.

More recently, Bonds has provided the only reason to go see a game in San Francisco: the all-time home run chase. But that home-run chase was also a distraction in the clubhouse that showed on the field. He wanted to win a World Series in San Francisco, but refused to take the cut in salary necessary for the Giants to be able to afford decent players with which to surround him.

In the end, Bonds' last game was indeed a fitting close to his San Francisco career. He gave the fans just enough to satisfy his own desires and ego, but ultimately left them wanting more. Barry is a great ball player, but he will never be a sports hero like Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and all the others. To be a hero you have to be a great player, and then go above and beyond for your fans.

As Bonds' fans showered him with unconditional love Tuesday night, you couldn't watch and think that he was going to stick around for his own tribute. Bonds doesn't go above and beyond. He never really has.

Relief

My post yesterday was out of frustration in my job search. I was called by the editor of a paper that I had a really promising interview at for a reporter who said that position will not be created. So while I was glad to at least not have been passed over for someone else, it did feel as if the fates were somehow against me.

I did get a call later in the evening and was offered a temporary (6 months or so) copy editing position in Pleasanton, which I'm excited about. While the schedule (evenings) will be tough (especially with Mary in the city), it's a great opportunity. Plus, the other position did leave open the possibility of free-lancing, which is also quite exciting.

Barry Bonds column tomorrow possibly...

Updates

On phone: I was able to get the phone activated over the phone by a tech support person, no problem. I still feel my rant is relevant and actually that the situation in the store is made worse by the fact that the sales reps essentially told me lies so that I couldn't activate a phone that wasn't bought at their store.

On life: I'm realizing that just because you go to school, study hard, work hard, do all the right things, be a good person, and sacrifice so much of yourself, doesn't mean that life owes you anything in return, even as all those around you are happy, successful and independent. So why bother?

Verizon: I hate you

Wow it's been awhile since I've posted. Not a lot going on personally that's worth posting. Waiting on some job stuff, working part-time in the city. Stressing has become part of my daily life.

The stress includes my nominee for worst customer service ever. Whatever happened to the time where, if you were a customer, companies made the point to make sure that you were 100% satisfied with their product? I thought that was the key to a good business model. Keep your current customers happy so that they stay your customers.

My nominee: Verizon Wireless. This applies to all cell-phone companies, but since I have Verizon and am pissed at them, we're going with that. It's actually quite remarkable how they've been able to set up a self-sustaining system through which they profit off of confused or unlucky customers. The phone they gave me when I signed their two-year agreement a year ago has barely lasted a year. I've decided I want an upgrade. This is exactly what they wanted from me. My options? I can pay $200-$300 plus for a new phone at the regular price, or I can get a phone at a discounted price if I get a new two-year agreement (although they will probably hit me for $150 for "early termination" of the old one).

Much like purchasing a used car, I decide to sacrifice a little product quality in exchange for price. I to go onto Craigslist and purchase a used phone for much cheaper than a new one would be. Turns out this phone was a pre-paid phone and even though the pre-paid account is empty (and should be closed) Verizon doesn't want to activate the phone. Makes sense. They don't make a dime if they activate this phone, they want me to buy a new one (or better yet, sign my life to them for another two years). So even though I am a paying Verizon customer with a perfectly good phone that no one is using, their "policies" dictate that nothing can be done. Besides, they can't really help me anyways since I bought the phone in New York and now I'm in California, which is on a different billing system. I was confused why such a large, national company in today's technological world can't consolidate billing systems, but then the sales rep made it abundantly clear. She'd be happy to move everything over with EZ Move - which of course will extend my contract for two years.

I could wait a year to qualify for "New Every Two," which is essentially a $100 discount on a new phone if I sign a new two-year agreement. Loyal paying customer, new contract, only $100 off, while their new customers get free, top of the line phones. All because the phone they gave me when I signed my contract barely works.

I know what my capitalist friends are thinking. "If you don't want the product don't buy it." Fair enough. But let's face it, a cell phone has become an essential part of today's world. And as I mentioned, ALL phone companies operate this way. Sprint, Cingular, et al won't be any different. They all have the same business model.

Keep the customer happy so he won't leave? They don't need to when you sign the contract. They've got you already. Why should they do what you want?

Updates, CA style

Been awhile since an update. I've been back in California for about a week and a half now, so I've gotten settled in back at home. While I miss New York, it is great to be back and the weather here really can't be topped. It's been good being around family again, as well.

Mary is getting settled into San Francisco. She starts law school Monday, which I'm excited about for her. Finding time for each other will be tough this year as she's in class four days a week, but at least we're not four and a half hours away!

I'll be living at home at least for the next few months. As some of you may know, I did apply for a job at Saint Mary's in admissions, which I found out today I did not get. While this brought its share of disappointment, it also brought a lot of self-kicking for not broadening the job search earlier. I'll start from scratch on Monday and try to figure out what to do from here. I suppose now is as good a time as any to start believing that when one door closes another opens.

Anywho, I'll keep updating for a little longer, but eventually I'd like to phase this blog out and am hoping to start a full-time sports (or politics) blog. I need to get back into writing shape (now more than ever).

Will indictment bring banning for Bonds?

It's been an emotional week for Barry Bonds. First, he was mired in 0-for-21 slump, then he hit two home-runs in one game to bring his career total to 753, two shy of Hank Aaron's all-time record. Then he calmly fell back into a slump, going 0-for-the series in Milwaukee.

Then the grand jury investigating him for perjury in the BALCO scandal extended the investigation another six months, and some sources say that the jury is pretty confident they've got a case against Barry.

It's been an emotional week for MLB Commish Bud Selig as well. While trying to decide if he will be there when Bonds breaks the record, he had to watch the slugger from his luxury box at Miller Park. With Bonds so close, by the way, he still has not made a decision and has not flown to San Francisco, where the Giants are all week.

Let's look at some "ifs." IF Barry is indicted and IF he's convicted, he could face time in jail. IF the big guy is indeed sent to the dog house, what then, should Selig do about him?

Selig's conundrum is obvious. He knows that the record is tainted, but he also knows that it is his own blindness to the problem of steroids that allowed this to happen. After the 1994 strike that canceled the World Series threatened to ruin baseball, Selig was happy to look the other way as offensive production soared and the single-season record for home-runs was eclipsed not once, but twice, in three years, all while whispers of steroids began to grow into alarm bells.

Selig can't look away now. Baseball's most hallowed (if not most unattainable) record is about to fall. Bonds is, at his essence, the most visible personification of Selig's hubris. The most attractive way to blunt that fatal flaw, at least in Selig's mind, could be the most extreme: ban Bonds from baseball for life.

The only certainty in all of this is that Barry will break the record. But if the aforementioned worst scenario breaks out for Barry, it may present this as the best option for Selig to escape from his self-inflicted nightmare.

This isn't to say being banned from baseball is a perfect answer. No one will tell you that Pete Rose's all-time hits record is illegitimate, but that is mostly because no matter what people think of Rose's off-the-field activities, no one is going to argue that his record is anything but legitimate. Bonds doesn't have that luxury.

So Bond's breaks the record, then is convicted of perjury. Selig's too proud to admit to his own mistakes (if he hasn't done it yet, it's not going to happen), so why not take the easy way out? Ban Bonds from baseball, which will effectively keep him out of the Hall of Fame and add the official seal of MLB approval to all of the doubts that fans east of the Bay Bridge have about Bond's accomplishments.

When you think about it, it's a perfect escape for Selig, a man who has been escaping his own failures for decades now.

Maybe it's just a New York thing, but sometimes you get a parking spot so good, it just makes you want to cry. I think George Costanza called it the "glory spot."

It's official

I didn't want to title it "Big News" because people who know Mary and I might have thought something different upon seeing it.

No, it's not that. If you know Mary and keep up with her Facebook profile, you probably know that the two of us are returning to California at the end of this month. Mary was accepted into law school at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, and while it was a difficult decision we both decided that the best thing to do was to return home so that she could start her studies. For me, I've given my "two-and-a-half" weeks notice and so I guess that's why I consider it official now.

Call it the sign of having a privileged life that informing my boss that I'm leaving was one of the more difficult things I've had to do. I consider myself a dedicated and loyal person, so it was hard to say that I'm leaving after just one year. Part of me also feels irrationally guilty. Jobs (and changing them) are just a part of life, so chalk this up as another valuable experience I've gained this year.

I've definitely fallen in love with the East Coast, and part of me hopes I return some day. For now though, I know it's time to return to California. I've applied for a job at the Alma mater, and if that doesn't work, at least I'll be at home where I have some time to figure things out (like what to call this blog once I'm no longer in NYC).

Storm's a-comin'

Lightning is cool. Thunder is even cooler. I really like the summer thunderstorms. Nothing like you get back West. The humidity that comes along with it is not as fun. It's really storming hard right now and it's just fun to listen to.

Mary was in town last weekend. We saw "Romeo and Juliet" at Shakespeare in the Park. If you don't know what that is, it's pretty much the best thing ever. Central Park has this gorgeous theatre called the Delacorte where every summer they put on daily performances of Shakespearian plays that are free. Yes, free. People line up at 6 a.m. to get the best seats. We got our place at 9 and got some of the last seats. The setting is beautiful; the lake is behind the stage and the show takes place as the sun is setting, which for "Romeo and Juliet" had the awesome effect of the sun setting and night falling as the play got darker and darker. However, I would have preferred it not be a play that I've seen and studied a million times before (like we all have).

I honestly had some witting things to say about various observations I had made throughout the week, but I forgot most of them. I need to post more often.

Big crack of thunder there. Cool.

I'll be out of commission the next few days. Up in the Poconos (Pennsylvania) through Friday for staff retreat and the Syracuse to bring Mary back for my week of vacation. Hooray vacation!

Storm's a-comin'...

Summer's back

One of the great things about living on the East Coast is that there is a measurable variation in the seasons. You get a real fall, a real winter, and a real summer. The downside is while summer in California is usually everyone's favorite season - a reprieve from the rain and clouds of winter/fall/spring - summer in New York is probably the worst. More rain falls in the summer than in the winter, and the humidity is just brutal. Regardless, I feel I'm just repeating things I said last summer when I first got here.

Living in New York also inevitably turns to moving in New York, as it did for one John Zabala this weekend. Lucky for us, it was 90 degrees the day we decided to move him to Brooklyn. It was a regular comedy of errors. Among the highlights: trying to maneuver the parts of his futon down five flights of stairs, trying to fit the six foot futon into my 5 foot trunk, getting lost in Brooklyn, and me fearing I was going to run out of gas and stall in the middle of traffic in lower Manhattan. At least I didn't have to work out yesterday...

I can't decide if I like driving in New York or not. I think I have learned to be a more aggressive driver, which is good for the city but won't be so good when I eventually return to California. It is kind of fun crusing down the streets (yes, I said cruising), darting in and out of lanes and avoiding the taxis. It's not as fun dealing with masses of pedestrians swarming across streets, and inevitable traffic. Plus, driving in lower Manhattan where the streets don't make sense is less fun than in upper Manhattan's strict grid plan. It's more fun when you know where you're going.

Last June orientation is this Thursday and Friday. I'm still trying to figure out why Admissions has to deal with orientation here and not Student Life. Mary comes to the city Friday night for a quick weekend, so I have that to get me through the week.

At least I get paid this week. Plus, there's alway money in the banana stand...

While reflecting on being an adult...

...I decided that reality is scary. (Hey, no wonder George Bush prefers to live outside of it.)

Republican debate

Just a quick thought on the Republican debate versus the Democratic debate (both in New Hampshire these past few days). While the Democrats stayed in their seats during the debate and elicited only a smattering of applause from the (mostly Democrat and Democrat-leaning Independent) audience, the Republican candidates are continually standing up to give their responses and getting much applause from the (mostly Republican and Republican-leaning Independent) audience.

Some may say that the Republican candidates are connecting more with the audience. I put forward, however, the Republican candidates are more prone to demagoguery, and that Republicans in general are more receptive to demagoguery. Or put in other words, maybe is it that Republicans are just more easily swayed by strong-looking candidates who stand up and yell the loudest.

Also, they seem to be talking over moderator Wolf Blitzer more than the Democrats did. Sorry Wolf, I'm in the middle of fear-mongering right now...

'Stray-Rod' hits Boston — with his wife - Baseball - MSNBC.com

'Stray-Rod' hits Boston — with his wife - Baseball - MSNBC.com

Personally I don't care what A-Rod does with his free time. If he wants to cheat on his wife, that's his demon to deal with, not mine. I also don't care, period. Why should I spend my day worrying about the moral decisions of an overpaid baseball player?

However, I do have a real problem with the wording of the articles on this so-called story, like this one from MSNBC.com. The subhead blares that A-Rod has been seen with a "bombshell," a word repeated several times throughout the article itself, along with mentioning several times that the woman he was with was a blond.

I guess this first offends me as a (former) journalist because they throw objectivity to the wind in pronouncing this woman a "bombshell." Sure, by most standards she may be considered attractive, but that is no excuse for inserting a heavily subjective (and sensationalized) word into the headline. Let the reader determine whether or not she is a bombshell and you, the journalist, keep your own opinions out of it. This is the stuff of The New York Post, not MSNBC.

Secondly, whether or not she is a "bombshell," or blond, should not even matter. Would it change the story if A-Rod was out on the town with a less-attractive burnette? If there were two different women he was out with, one blond and the other not, maybe then a clarification would be needed (big maybe), but it makes no sense to describe the same woman over and over. We get it. He was with another woman. That's all we need to know, and the inclusion of words such as "bombshell" and "blond" do nothing more than the take what was an objective story regarding a famous public figure and turn it into yellow journalist sensationalism.

Lastly, referring to this woman as a "bombshell" and "blond" is just plain disrespectful. In the entire article, only once is she referred to as simply "the woman" without at least one of the other two adjectives in front of it. She is turned into nothing but an object. Thanks to articles like this, she is no longer a woman who makes her own thoughts and decisions. She is reduced to her hair color; she is defined by her looks.

It was no surprise when The Post broke this story and turned it into the tabloid drama that it's now become. It's sad, however, to see reputable news sources like MSNBC play into the sensationalist game. I guess I just expected more journalistic integrity from them. Apparently I was wrong.

California Dreamin'

I've been back in New York for a full week now. Getting back into my old routines of work, working out, etc. has been weird. Even though in the grand scheme of things three weeks is not that long, when I was back in California it felt as if I had never left in the first place.

My Northern California swing was extremely enjoyable. I had fairs in San Francisco, Turlock, Sonoma, Marin, Santa Clara and Hayward. It was incredibly busy since I had almost a fair per day which put a little bit of a damper on being able to stay at home the whole time. I did get to spend a lot of time with my family which was great, as well as Chris. Went to an A's game the first weekend with Chris, and a Giants game with Chris and the family, so I got my fill of baseball. I also got to spend a day in San Francisco just wandering around, visiting some sights that I hadn't been to in awhile, such as the Golden Gate Bridge. The best part though was going back to Saint Mary's and visiting all of the Admissions people there. I had forgotten what great people work in that office and how much fun I had there. It was just nice being back at Saint Mary's, period, I guess.

All in all, the whole experience made me miss California very much. No matter how much I love New York, home is home and Northern California will always be home to me. Still, coming back to New York was also exciting. I had forgotten how much I enjoy living here. In the end, New York is really my love affair. It's provides instant excitement, is always fun, and there's always something to do, but eventually I know that New York is not going to always be for me and that I will want to return home eventually.

I had also forgotten what New York City is like when it's not 35 degrees outside and the trees have their leaves back. It's nice.

Leaving Los Angeles

I think I'm officially over L.A. When I really think back on it, all the years I lived in California I always passed through L.A. - on the way to Disneyland, San Diego, etc. - but never really spent much time actually in L.A. The past three days I was in downtown Los Angeles and I wasn't all that impressed. Overall this past week and a half, being in Southern California reminded me of all the reasons why I prefer Northern California. L.A. and Vicinity is just so big and so crowded, and the smog is depressing.

What I've essentially decided is that I enjoy Southern California as long as its not L.A. County or Orange County. I love San Diego (and Oceanside - thanks Bex), and today I visited Ventura, which was also beautiful. I think in L.A. and Orange County the great weather and great scenery is almost ruined by the incredible amount of people there.

Also, L.A. people should learn how to drive in the rain. There was a moderate shower on Friday and the freeways were jammed from all of the accidents.

Am I a hypocrite for saying that L.A. is too crowded when I live in the most densely populated place in the United States (Manhattan)? I don't necessarily think so. New York seems to manage its population better. Yes the city can be a big place, but everyone is moving so fast and so in sync that it works. It's almost as if there is a controlled chaos with thousands of unwritten rules in New York that everyone knows and follows. Plus, the subway actually works. That helps a lot. L.A. will always win on weather though. Can't help that.

A quick recap of what the last week and a half has held for me. Six fairs: Ontario, San Diego, Santa Monica, Anaheim, L.A. and Ventura. I drove the L.A.-San Diego express about four or five times, which got old quickly. I rekindled my love for San Diego. I got to see Becky and spend a couple days with her in Oceanside. I got to see my family and spend a couple days with them in Anaheim (and Disneyland!). Got to see my brother's workshow in Irvine. While in L.A. I did spend some time going to Hollywood and being a tourist there, which was fun.

I'm looking very much forward to a week and a half in Northern California. No matter how much I love New York, the Bay Area is home. I have to get up in about 6 hours to catch my quick flight up to SFO so it's off to bed. So long, Southern California. It's been fun (except you L.A. - you're on notice).

Is it right to bear arms?

CNN"s Jim Cafferty was just speaking to Wolf Blitzer about the Virginia Tech shooting. He said that he's noticed that this seems to be a genuinely American phenomenon (mass shootings) and can't recall many times it is happened in other countries. He then said he couldn't figure out what that was.

Really, Jim? Maybe it's because we're one of the only Western countries to still allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons, and the NRA and Republicans continue to block any legislation to prevent semi-automatic and automatic weapons from being obtained by people who plan to go out and kill 32 people in one morning.

Just a thought, Jim.

Several updates for this post. It's been a long couple of weeks. This post really moves in three acts. First up is Easter weekend. Mary came to the city, and her brother Damien and his friend Steve flew in from California. We had a pretty busy weekend. Lunch in the East Village on Friday got things started. Saturday we got up early and took a cab to Brooklyn where Damien showed us around his own neighborhood. We then walked across the Brooklyn Bridge into lower Manhattan, making our way up through TriBeCa, Little Italy and Soho (which I had never been to before) before Mary and I called it a day and headed home for a bit. We met them and Zabala in the Upper West Side for dinner and drinks later. Sunday we celebrated the resurrection of our Lord by going to a Yankees game. Go Jesus. Sunday night was overpriced Mexican food, and Monday Mary went home, but not before surprising me by showing up at the college to meet me for lunch.

The second act is the incredibly long week I had at work. Tuesday night we had an event on campus. Wednesday we had our second accepted students day and I had a fair two hours away in New Jersey that night. Thursday I had another fair. I was essentially working (when not sleeping) from 9 a.m. Tuesday until about 9:30 p.m. Thursday. Needless to say, I was ridiculously exhausted come Friday night. It's such a shame that we don't get overtime. Or even comp time. At least the boss (apparently) doesn't really keep track of vacation days.

Finally, I'm writing this in a hotel in Southern California. I'll be on the West Coast for three weeks during my much-hyped and much-anticipated recruiting trip out here. Truth be told, I'm incredibly lucky to be out here at all. According to the news right now, over 500 flights to and from the Northeast have been cancelled because of the massive storm that's settled over New York City and the Eastern Seaboard. So the mere fact that my flight took off without a minute of delay and landed early is nothing short of miraculous.

I'll be in Ontario, Ca. until Tuesday when I make my way down to San Diego. Later in the week I'll head back north to Oceanside and Anaheim, then Los Angeles early next week. Thursday I fly up to the Bay Area where I'll be until the end of the first week of May. I'll try to post more often as I'm here because I'm sure (or rather, I muse) that I'll have things to post about.

Yankees-Red Sox? Please!

Along with the thawing of the New York winter, the return of sunshine and the reblossoming of the trees, a new baseball season emerges from the storm that is the winter off season.

Yes, the American past time has returned once again to provide a sweet distraction for those of us who love to leave the stresses of the world to a place where nothing else matters but the game. It's time to return to the ballparks, the stats, the pennant races, and of course, baseball's premier rivalry.

No, I'm not talking about you, Boston and New York.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that ESPN usually gives little credence to any sports happening west of the Mississippi and Yankee and Red Sox fans think little of the world in general west of the Hudson, the supposed penultimate rivalry in baseball, Yanks versus Sox, always overshadows all. This undoubtedly ignores the true best rivalry in baseball: the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

The Giants and Dodgers are firstly the longest rivalry in baseball, stretching back to the early days of baseball in New York. The New York Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers were New York's main two teams, and met in 1889 in baseball's then-World Championship series. The Dodgers moved to the National League the following year - predating the founding of both the Yankees and the Sox by 11 years - and the rivalry was on.

The battle was not just about baseball supremacy, but about regional pride as well. Brooklyn and New York were not officially the same city until 1898, and even today Brooklyn maintains a strong sense of "borough pride." The Giants-Dodger's rivalry was emblematic of the geographical rivalry between Manhattan and Brooklyn, dividing baseball loyalties in baseball's central city. For proof, read historian and Dodger-fan Doris Kearns Goodwin's excellent Memoir, Wait Till Next Year.

The Giants-Dodgers rivalry is not only the longer than Yankees-Red Sox, it's far more even. Through 2006, the series stands 1,054 to 1,035 in the Giant's favor, a window of just 19 games in over 100 years. In addition, each team has won five world championships. By contrast, the Yankees have almost a 200 game advantage over the Red Sox in all-time games played, and of course everyone knows about the Yankee's 26 to 6 advantage in World Series victories.

Sorry East Coast fans, if that's a rivalry, then so is a nail versus a hammer.

Then there's the pennant race drama. Perhaps baseball's most famous moment, the "Shot Heard 'Round the World," was a Giants-Dodgers moment. Even when knocked out of playoff contention, the Giants and Dodgers seem to find ways of ruining things for each other. The Dodgers have played "spoiler" for the Giants playoff hopes in five times since 1932. The Giants have returned the favor three times. Even a 103-win season by the Giants in 1993 wasn't good enough to be stopped by the spoilers from SoCal.

When the Dodgers decided to move West in 1957, the Giants came along too, for the sake of preserving the rivalry. And let's not forget that Jackie Robinson retired rather than be traded to the Giants.

I know it's tough medicine for you to swallow, New York and Boston fans, but your rivalry simply isn't in the top of the class. You're really more like the kid who gets all the attention simply because he yells the loudest and, on occasion, starts a few fights.

No, the top of the class lies West, where the San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers simply play hard, tough baseball in the sport's best rivalry. Play ball!

Quick updates

It was exciting to experience my first real winter (and snow!) but I can't wait for Spring to permanently arrive. The past couple weeks we have been teased early on (73 on Tuesday) but then the weather seems to settle back into the 40s later on. I've almost forgotten what it was like walking to work in the summer heat. The subway cars are always a source of repreive...in the winter from the cold and in the summer from the heat. How did people live here 100 years ago?

Been doing a handful of fairs these past couple of weeks. Mostly in NJ but last night in Queens. I'm really looking forward to two weekends from now, when I head out to California for three weeks. Oh, and I'm looking forward to next week when Mary (and her brother Damien) come to the city. New Jersey this weekend to see the Clark clan for the first time since Thanksgiving (wow). My next month and a half are going to be nuts.

Can't wait to see all the California people!

The writing on the Harvard bathroom wall

Spent St. Patrick's Day in Boston. Very nice city, although I wish I had more time to walk around and enjoy it, and I wish it hadn't been as cold. I look forward to coming back sometime in the summer.

Early Sunday morning Mary and I hopped on the T and headed over to Cambridge and Harvard Square. We walked around the campus a bit (which overall didn't impress me that much, but it was interesting to reflect on the history of the school) before ducking into a coffee shop in Harvard Square. I had to laugh when I went to use the restroom and noticed what was written on the walls. No plethora of "for a good time call.." or "I f--ked so-and-so here" for those Harvard kids. This was a classier bathroom wall with witty musings or meaningless phrases on life and philosophy (for example, "Immanuel Kant...and never could" - how clever). So yes, even the bathroom walls at Harvard are better than your bathroom walls.

Walking around the campus just made me start to think about my future. Maybe it was just the concept of potential that got me thinking. Students at Harvard have unlimited potential, and furthermore, greatness is expected of them. Obviously, I'm not Harvard-quality, but I feel like great things have always been expected of me (by myself and others) and am questioning whether where I am is where I really want to be. I have a good job and am going to grad school for free, but if I'm going to spend the time and effort shouldn't I make sure it's spent on something I truly want to do. I'm starting to feel less and less like education is a field that I ultimately want to end up in.

So I need to start exploring. I need to start writing more to keep my skills sharp. I need to start looking at graduate programs that interest me. I don't know if I'll pursue anything I find, but it's worth the look.

Has '24' jumped the shark?

Warning: Do not read this article if you are a "24" fan and have not watched through the February 26 episode ("4:00PM-5:00PM") or if you don't want a few spoilers from previous seasons.

For five time-ticking, heart-stopping, breath-taking seasons, FOX's hit drama "24" has been one of the smartest, most exciting series on television. Jack Bauer has become a household name. It's season premiere each January is a major television event. I have long been one of the shows biggest fans, and I still am. So now I find myself surprised to be asking this question: has "24" jumped the shark?

For those unfamiliar with the term, "jumped the shark" is used to describe a television show that has hit its creative peak. It is often used to decribe long-airing shows that tapered off during their final years. With five and almost a half seasons in the can, it's safe to ask this question for "24."

For years, "24" was the show that pushed the envelope. It seemed that each season brought a terrifying new threat, element or thrill. Season one debuted the season's defining elements: the real-time narrative and the fact that no major character, no matter how sympathetic, is safe. In season two the threat was escalated to a national level. In season three, the threat was partially carried out. Season four saw a completely reinvented and rejuvinated cast and a larger set of villians, and season five went as far as they could go by making the President himself a culprit in the plot.

It's almost as if "24" is sealing its own fate by trying to get bigger every season. By continually making the threats bigger and bigger, the bad guys badder and badder, and Bauer darker and darker, the writers of "24" have set a course that must inevitably end in failure because there comes a point at which bigger can no longer be better.

That point may well be this season. I won't recount all of it's events for the sake of brevity, but most of the shows plot elements have simply been repeats of prior episodes. A nuclear bomb explodes? Done in season two. Jack Bauer must somehow make a return to active duty? Done in seasons two, four and five. Inside plots in the White House? Two and five. It's all the same. Reed Pollack's plan to eliminate Wayne Palmer to put the V.P. in charge mirrors Mike Novick's plan to oust David Palmer in season two. Gredenko using the Arabs to take the fall for his plot is exactly what Peter Kingsley and Max have already done in season two.

The most exciting moment in the season so far - the nuclear explosion - has already been done, before and the show's next exciting moment was also a repeat. Sure, the bomb incapacitating Wayne Palmer this week so that the V.P. can take over was exciting, but we've already seen that, in season four when an attack on Air Force One put Charles Logan in charge.

There are also several, potentially intriguing plot elements that seem to just be ignored. How has the country been able to not rip apart admist 5 (now 6) different presidents in eight years, and a dozen terrorist strikes within that span? And why (besides producer Joel Surnow being an ultra-conservatve) does torture continue to always work for Jack Bauer? Why can Jack Bauer do anything, anytime? Think of the amazing plot twists that could be if the nation erupted into riots, if CTU followed a lead from a tortured suspect only to see that lead proven false, or if Jack somehow failed at something and collapsed under the weight of the past eight years?

But that's the problem with "24" this season. In place of innovative new ideas, they simply take old ones and make them bigger and bigger. In short, the creative spark that made "24" so good may be starting to leave.

What can they do to fix this? It's too late the adjust season six, so season seven needs a major overhaul. Instead of making everything "bigger and better," the writers should create a threat that is smaller, more acute. Shift the focus to the people making the decisions, make it a more character-driven show. Return the show to it's roots, season one, when the threat was smaller and not known to the public and suspense was created not by the amount of explosions, but by how the characters were forced to deal with the circumstances around them.

"24" is still one of the better shows on television. But even the best shows sometimes need to tweak their formulas, lest they risk becoming stale and uncreative or, in short, jumping the shark.

Presidential primary history

The above article is just a little history lesson about the GOP and the Democrat's choosing of their presidential candidates. The gist of it is that Rudy Guiliani, being the front-runner for the GOP right now, has a good shot at being the nominee since Republican's tend to go with their front-runners. Hillary Clinton, however, could be vulnerable because the Democrats are not as decisive early on and front-runners tend to falter (i.e. Howard Dean in 2004).

My initial thoughts are that the Republican party is largely homogeneous: predoninantly white, middle to uppper-class, and Protestant. A GOP candidate can play to that base early on and cruise to victory. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a largely fractured base. A candidate must try to balance the competing pieces, such as the anti-war people, the gay community, the labor forces or the African-American community to name a few, and often times stumble along the way.

In 2000 George Bush was able to satisfy the Republican base early on with his "compassionate conservative" message, and never let go. In 2004, however, Howard Dean may have played too much to one part of the Democratic base, the anti-war part, leaving primary voters to go with the presumably safer choice of John Kerry.

There are a lot of factors, but that's just what I thought of when I saw this. I've always said that the GOP has been better at party discipline the last decade or so primarily because their party has less diversity of opinions in the base, allowing them to easily rally beind a single message. Thoughts?

Message from the cold

Man its been cold here lately. The windchills have been below zero the past couple of days, which isn't as bad as I expected but certainly making me ready for spring more and more. Overall I'm enjoying the winter, but I wish there were more snow. Just not when I drive (more on that below).

Lately it's been a lot of the same old, same old. Work has become pretty routine in terms of just reading applications as they come. Some days I have a full 7.5 hours of work, while others I seem to idle around because I've gotten it all done. I was officially the first one out of the road for the Spring, thanks to a lone winter national fair in Pittsburgh last week. I foolishly thought that I'd rather just drive there (it's about 6 hours) than fly. The drive in was nice, but the drive back on Friday kicked my butt. It snowed/rained the entire way, which meant it took me longer, and it was draining - not something you want after 10 hours of college fair duty.

It was back to the office and routine yesterday. I don't travel much until March, when I have a few scattered fairs in New Jersey. April, however, get's really exciting. I'll be in SoCal for a week and a half and NorCal for another week and a half, which I'm way excited about. And yes, I do get to do the college fair at Saint Mary's so I'll hopefully get a chance to say hi to SMC folk while I'm there. I'm looking forward to going, although its created some complications...

...being that I've started taking classes in Counseling here at Manhattan. I've already had to drop one of my two classes due to my travel schedule, so I'm just kind of testing the waters right now in terms of this program. I don't even know if I want a degree in counseling, and even if I do, whether or not I'll be able to finish the program.

Anyways, between class and actually trying to work out, I've found myself with less free time, which I guess has been good.

On a final note, here's an interesting link I found: Manhattan Elsewhere. Some guy went to Google Maps and figured out what the island of Manhattan looks like, size wise, compared to other (mostly) major cities. I found the comparison to San Francisco intriguing. Manhattan looks so tiny by comparison: it fits between Oakland and S.F., S.F.'s financial district is easily as wide as Midtown Manhattan, and Golden Gate Park is bigger than Central Park. It's pretty weird, and if you've been to New York you might agree with me: Manhattan doesn't feel that small. It certainly doesn't feel smaller than San Francisco. Maybe its the taller buildings, maybe its the constant crush of people, maybe its the faster pace of life, but compared to San Francisco, Manhattan seems much, much, much bigger. Any thoughts?

The GOP's '08 enthusiam problem

Sure, its a bit early to take a look at the 2008 election. I personally thought it ridiculous when Wolf Blitzer was dedicating a segment of his show to analyzing polls for an election 21 months away.

So understanding that things will almost certainly change, I think one of the initial observations one can glean from the early, early stages of the campaign is what may turn out to be a huge problem for the Republicans: enthusiasm.

If there is one thing that is true about U.S. elections these days, it's that they're close. Bush 43's majority in 2004 was 51% to Kerry's 49%. He didn't win a majority (or a plurality) in the well-scrutinized 2000 election. Clinton never won a majority. Bush 41 won 53% in 1988. So for the past twenty years, the difference in elections has been mainly about two things: winning the independents and turning out your base.

Disregarding the fact that the 2006 election showed that independents are leaning Democrat these days, the GOP may be setting itself up for a large turnout problem in 2008.

If you look closely at the top three Democratic candidates right now - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards - along with the top three Republican candidates - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney - an interesting pattern emerges.

All of the candidates have their flaws. On the Democratic side, Clinton is too cold and calculated, Obama too inexperienced, and Edwards has been out of office for two years. With the Republicans, Giuliani is too liberal, McCain too wrong on the war (at least currently), and Romney a Mormon - not a flaw of course but sadly more of a problem in the eyes of the evangelical Christian Republican base than, say, Clinton's being a woman or Obama's being black is to the Democratic base.

The difference comes down to the fact that despite their "flaws," each of the Democratic candidates seems to elicit an enthusiasm among the Democratic base that the Republican candidates do not. All of the Democratic primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can overcome the overwhelming support of the other two. All of the Republican primary talk is focused on how each of these candidates can garner any Republican support at all.

Obama and Edwards voters may not support Hillary in the primary, but they will almost certainly vote for her in the general election should she be the candidate. If Giuliani wins the Republican primary, it's harder to see supporters of the more socially conservative Romney voting for him rather than just staying home, and visa versa.

Essentially we have a reversal of the 2004 election, magnified. John Kerry was not a candidate who could excite Democrats who would otherwise stay home to vote. Bush, on the other hand, rallied his conservative base to the polls and they carried him to victory. Bush was thus able to win despite even the fact that independents leaned slightly towards Kerry.

Again, it's important to remember that a lot can change in 21 months. But if enthusiasm continues to be a problem for the Republican candidates, give an early advantage to the Democrats in 2008.

Three strikes, Bonds is out!

Bonds reportedly failed amphetamine test - Baseball - MSNBC.com:

"NEW YORK - Barry Bonds failed a test for amphetamines last season and originally blamed it on a teammate, the Daily News reported Thursday.

When first informed of the positive test, Bonds attributed it to a substance he had taken from teammate Mark Sweeney%u2019s locker, the New York City newspaper said, citing several unnamed sources.

"I have no comment on that," Bonds' agent Jeff Borris told the Daily News on Wednesday night."

People on the East Coast have often asked me how I feel about Barry Bonds. I don't know how they know I'm a Giants fan. Could be the Giants calendar that's been in my office since August. Or the bobblehead that sits on my desk. Whatever. Anyway, I've always told them, "conflicted." I thought, I would say, that he was guilty of taking steroids. But then again, I would add, so were a good deal of other players and it was unfair to single Bonds out. Besides, he's on my team. Laker's fans root for Kobe, right? The French still adore Zinedine Zidane, right? Actually they could hate him. I didn't full fact check that one. I digress.

But as for Bonds and I, no more.

Apparently he tested positive for amphetamines. Strike one. Now, amphetamines aren't steroids. They're little pills that pep you up. Take them before a game, give you good energy. Like coffee, but without the peeing and upset stomach. Players have been using them for years. Even Willie Mays was known to have them. That doesn't make them right, but like the first strike, it's not too harsh of a count against a player.

He tested positive for them last season, after they were banned by MLB. Strike two. Bonds showed a flagrant disregard for the rules of baseball on this one. Taking the pills before they were banned is one thing. Taking them after they were banned, especially after one has denied any and all baseball wrongdoing before, is a sign of one who believes he is so great as to be above the rules.

Bonds was in a tough position here. An 0-2 count can be precarious. The public is willing to throw a few outside the zone, but one miss and its back to the dugout.

Bonds then proceeded to blame an innocent team mate, Mark Sweeney, for providing him with the pills. Ladies and gentlemaen, a big, BIG, swinging strike three. Barry could have gained back some of his lost respect by owning up to what he had done and facing the consequences. Maybe his career would have been done, maybe he wouldn't ever get Hank Aaron's all-time home run record, but he would still have a good shot at the Hall of Fame. Nothing counts more against a great player's entry into baseball's shrine than character. Ask Pete Rose.

No, instead of owning up to his mistakes, Bonds said that he stole a bottle out of Sweeney's locker and took what was inside without knowing what they were. You get the idea.

Dante reserves the lowest circle of hell for those who betrayed friends. Judas, Brutus, and the lot. Nothing is lower in sports than trying to turn your own team mate into a scapegoat. Few thought Barry could sink lower in terms of personal character. Barry just lowered the bar for them.

If someone asks me now what I feel about Barry Bonds, I think I have a more clear-cut answer. I want him out of baseball. I want him off my team. The Giants still haven't finalized their $16 million contract with him. If they have any respect for the integrity of the game, they'll end negotations and force Bonds to fruitlessly look elsewhere, effectively forcing him into retirement.

Bonds has had a long career, one full of more successes than most players dream of. He got a lot of cheers from me. But not anymore. He may have over 700 long-balls in his career, but this time he's struck out big time.

Tres holidays

It's been awhile since I've posted. I guess when you fall out of habit of blogging it's hard to get back into it. So what's happened to me the past five weeks? Mary's come and gone, twice. The LVs have come, the JVs have come. I've spent Thanksgiving in New Jersey, Christmas in California, and New Year's Eve in Brooklyn. Where to start?

Mary and I have certainly been spoiled by the holidays. We had five straight days together over Thanksgiving weekend and ten total days together over the Christmas break. I think being in a long-distance relationship that works can be, while painful, really good for the relationship in a sense. You don't really appreciate how much someone means to you until you have to live without them for weeks at a time. I don't know how long-distance relationships worked before cell phones, e-mail and instant messanger.

The same way goes, I feel, for home - both the loved ones at home and the place itself. I was amazed by how much I appreciated being "home" in the college sense. That is, you know you don't live there anymore but you still feel so comfortable there. I quickly forgot that I had an apartment, a job, and a whole life 3,000 miles away. Zach Braff described the seemingly haphazard plot of "Garden State" as being just like actually going home: there's no set order to what happens, you just seem to bounce from place to place to place without a plan. It's both saddening and comforting those brief hours (or minutes) you see old friends. Saddening to realize that you can only really connect with these people once or twice a year, comforting to know that the friendship is strong enough to suffer because of that.

Likewise, coming back to New York wasn't that big of a deal. Like going home, there was no "well, I'm home" or "I can't believe I live so far away" or anything like that. As small and cluttered my apartment is, it's my new home and I feel comfortable there as well.

I never thought I'd have a chance to experience New Year's Eve in Times Square. I never thought I'd pass it up to go to Brooklyn. I'm glad I did. The Jesuit Volunteers are a fun bunch, and I hope to get to know better the ones who live here in New York City. It was all so simple: some Chinese food, a few beers, and a rooftop with a clear view of the Manhattan skyline on a clear night were all that were needed to ring in 2007.

Besides, Mary and I decided to save Times Square for next year.

So after an eventful week and a half, it will be weird to start the normal routine again tomorrow. I really don't know how productive I'm going to be at work tomorrow (sorry Kevin). I'm going to try to post more often, but I want to get past this "here's what I did today" phase. Have any ideas on something to write about?