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.