SF reroutes torch relay, but misses the point

Since it was my day off, I had the luxury of sitting at home and watching the torch relay live on TV as it dove and ducked throughout the streets of San Francisco. As I watched the torch disappear, only to reemerge in the city on an unannounced route, listening to the media trying to figure out where the flame was going, it became quickly apparent something more was going on.

I can understand why the route was changed. There were thousands of people lining the Embarcadero. Throngs were gathered at AT&T park and the plaza by the Ferry Building. The main job of the city and the police is to keep everyone safe, and there was too much potential for things to get out of hand.

But this was more than just crowd control. The first torch bearer smiled and waved to the crowd, then ran the opposite direction straight into a warehouse where she stayed for at least 15 minutes. Boats circled outside the warehouse - were they going to carry the torch to the plaza near the Ferry Building over the Bay? A motorcade peeled out, but where were they going? Former Mayor Willie Brown, a torch bearer, was whisked by boat to the Ferry Building and told to wait outside where cameras could clearly capture him - was the relay scrapped? Was the mayor told he was bumped? Would the torch end up at the plaza after all? - before he was rushed to the new route to be one of the final torch bearers. When the relay finally ended, they stopped at the foot of the Golden Gate Bridge just long enough to make everyone think the flame was heading across - and to back up traffic just as rush hour was starting - before piling into the bus and heading, well, no one knew where they were heading.

Eventually NBC confirmed that they were heading to the airport. They also found out that, as of last night, the Chinese were calling the shots for the relay. Again, this was more than crowd-control. This was a carefully choreographed operation meant to intentionally deceive not just protestors and the media, but everyone who gave up their day to come to San Francisco's waterfront and share in the Olympic spirit.

Again, I understand that changing the route was probably necessary for everyone's safety, but engaging in a bait-and-switch, secret service-like deception operation, the city and the relay organizers did the relay a disservice. The image of the Olympic flame in the United States will be one that was, yes, successful. But it will also be one of a flame that had to be guarded and ultimately hidden from the people.

San Diego proves WCC suits were right to move tourney

Gonzaga is still going dancing, although its seeding may have suffered. Saint Mary's must must anxiously wait to see if the fairy godmother will come with an invitation to the Big Dance.

And San Diego, on the wings of its home crowd, already has a ticket punched.

Nothing should diminish the Torrero's achievement's this weekend in San Diego. Coming back from a seemingly insurmountable deficit (helped by SMC's sudden inability to find the basket) to make it to the finals, then stunning powerhouse Gonzaga to win the West Coast Conference championship. Their play was inspired and thrilling to watch.

But it's ironic that all of this happened the same weekend the WCC announced that next year's tournament will be held on an neutral site, in Las Vegas. San Diego's victory showed precisely why the WCC tournament needs a neutral court, and thus that the conference made the right decision.

The reasoning behind rotating the tournament between schools makes some sense. It allows the action to remain close to home. Many I'm sure feel that by playing the games in some far-off arena, the tournament loses some of its charm.

But the WCC is no longer a sideshow conference, exciting to watch for the students at those schools and the alumni who still follow games, but few else. In basketball, at least, it has become a player on the national stage. Gonzaga has been a Top-25 team for most of the past 10 years. Saint Mary's is quickly becoming the conference's second powerhouse. And each year an upstart challenger not wearing blue and red seems to provide trouble for the Gaels and the Zags: San Diego this year, Santa Clara last year, Loyola Marymount the year before.

Hosting the tournament gives the home team an incredible advantage. This usually mattered little since Gonzaga was a sure shot to win the conference anyways, but now it's different. Other teams, notably Saint Mary's but increasingly San Diego and Santa Clara, are posing an increasing threat to the Zags' dominance.

In addition, the tournament is not even rotated fairly. Of the eight teams in the conference, only half are allowed to host. Saint Mary's, Loyola Marymount, San Francisco and Pepperdine are ineligible because their gyms don't meet the requirements. So while Gonzaga, Santa Clara, San Diego and Portland can travel to another school's home court knowing that in a few years they enjoy playing for the title in front of a friendly crowd, the others will never get that advantage.

Few analysts doubt that, had the tournament been held anywhere other than San Diego, the outcome would have been different. True, if you're good enough to make the NCAA tournament, you should win tough road games. But the Big Dance is held on entirely neutral courts.

Home court advantage is rightly a part of the regular season, because its evened out. You know you're going to have face their team in their gym, but you also know that, sometime else in the season, you'll face them again at home. But in the postseason, when its one-and-done, you don't have a chance to make up for any advantage the crowd provides. And in college basketball, the crowd provides a huge advantage.

Your postseason chances should be determined by the statement you made - your record - in the regular season, not by the noise level of a partisan crowd. The WCC was right to elect to move the tournament, and with the WCC on the rise in the college basketball world, let's hope the decision stands.

A funny thing happened on the way to New Hampshire

Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses.

As a big-time supporter of Sen. Obama, I was extremely excited. It was happening. While I've been passionate about politics for many years, and as a primarily partisan political junkie have taken up the banner of most Democratic candidates no matter how lackluster (see Kerry, John, presidential campaign of), Obama has been the first one I have truly believed in and been inspired by. He was gaining momentum, and with John Edwards becoming less relevant (he carries the same "change" banner as Obama, but with less money and less charisma), a win in New Hampshire could strike a big blow to Hillary Clinton and give Obama a significant advantage heading into Super Tuesday.

But then another feeling came up: sadness. I began to see the double-edged sword that has resulted from the Democrats' stacked deck of candidates this year. A win for Obama, the first African American with a serious shot at the White House, means a loss for Clinton, the first woman with a serious shot (and, to a lesser extent, Bill Richardson, the first Latino).

While the Republicans race has been primarily a bunch of Protestant (with the exception of Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani) white guys arguing amongst each other over who is most like that popular Protestant white guy who was the president during the 1980s, the Democrats were busy putting together a line-up of candidates that looked more like the new America.

The new America is one in which whites are becoming less of a majority (they have already been relegated to a mere plurality in California and Texas). It is one in which the Latino vote is becoming more and more crucial. It is one in which blacks and women are gaining more and more leadership positions. Last election, Devan Patrick became the first African-American governor of Massachusetts. We have a black woman as the secretary of state. More and more women are breaking the glass ceiling to become powerful business leaders.

But with all the potential "firsts" on the Democratic side - first woman, first African American, first Latino - only one can be the nominee, and then he or she must do battle with the white guy from across the aisle.

I began to look at things from Clinton's perspective. The first student commencement speaker ever at her alma mater, Wellesley, and a graduate of Yale Law School with incredible potential, she put aside her personal ambitions to marry Bill Clinton. She waited as his political star rose, and she endured his many marital infidelities. In 2000, her turn finally came. She was elected to the Senate in New York, and was re-elected in 2006. She was smart, talented, and in the Senate. Nothing could stop her ascendency to the presidency; she was going to make history.

Until Obama. You can understand why she got a little choked up while campaigning yesterday. All her hard work and patience may be over as soon as today if Obama wins in New Hampshire.

And therein, again, lies the double-edged sword. As much as I want to see an Obama win and an Obama presidency, part of me will always be sad for the lost chance, at least for now, of Clinton breaking the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton steadies and pulls out the win, I will support her enthusiastically. If trends continue and she loses, I will be happy that it was not because she was a woman. It was because she was faced with a new, often-times more inspirational rival who is also trying to make history, and Democratic voters simply went with him instead. And I will hope that she will have inspired other women to realize that the most powerful position in the world is no longer off-limits to them.

And then I will cheer on Obama, as he goes head to head with yet another white, male Republican.

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.