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.

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.)