The Answer Guy Online

Providing information to unwitting victims on a "don't-need-to-know" basis since 1974.

Sunday, November 30, 2003

In NFL news, the Patriots take care of business against the Colts in the RCA Dome today and moved to 10-2, their best start in franchise history.

I got to sit down and watch this game in my own home, a rarity for a New England fan in an NFC town that lives and dies by the Redskins.

I'm still not sure quite what to think of this team - it's a testament to their talent that they managed to take down a 9-2 team in their own stadium despite making a number of key mistakes throughout the game. They turned the ball over three times in the second half - and an 18-yard punt that more or less amounted to a de facto turnover.

Also, the opponents of one of my fantasy football teams started Peyton Manning today, so the third quarter in particular was painful.

Next week - Miami comes to Foxboro, an opportunity to nail down the AFC East, thereby becoming the NFL's first team to clinch a playoff berth. (Kansas City can also clinch a berth by beating Denver at the same time.)

Friday, November 28, 2003

Mom and Bob were in town for a wonderful Thanksgiving feast at my house yesterday. I have an an amazing and supportive family and feel sorry for all of those not similarly blessed.

Now, I'm stuck here, virtually alone in the workplace on a dreary day when I wish I was sleeping. Well, when the paycheck arrives, it'll all be worth it.

Now comes Christmas shopping season, but that's a rant for another time.

Thursday, November 27, 2003

Happy Thanksgiving!

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Apparently, some people in the town of Corleone want to change the town's name.

Given that the movie that gave rise to Coreleone's infamy is now over 30 years old, this reminds me a little bit of the cranky old ladies that write letters to the Worcester Telegram about the 'anti-Catholic bigotry' and 'attitude of sexual promiscuity' found in Billy Joel's "Only The Good Die Young."

Trivia mavens would also remind everyone that Vito's real surname is "Andolini."

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Rape happens in the real world. I guess rape happens in the "Real World" too.

I'm so out of it I wasn't really aware they were still doing "The Real World."

The sad part, other than the incident itself if it did in fact occur, is that if they had TV footage of it, it'd probably get off-the-scale ratings.

By The Time I Get To Phoenix

So much to blog, so little time. Mom is coming to visit me for Thanksgiving for a change, so I've been trying to make the house presentable...

In the meantime...

In what is a certainty to join the all-time Hideous Mugshot Hall of Fame, alongside the ugly publicized mugs of Nick Nolte, Wynonna Judd, and terrorist suspect Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, check out country singer Glen Campbell, busted for DUI.

In other news, we have, if these allegations are anywhere near true, the most clueless business owner in America. On the other hand, "Female Magic" sounds like a great name for some product hawked on a late-night TV informercial.

Monday, November 24, 2003

In the "Triilogy of FOX Playoff Commerical Torture," it's two down, one to go.

I don't think I've ever heard a TV exec, even at Fox, actually admit that the underestimated the intelligence of the American public, and suffered for it.

All we need now is for "The O.C." to get cancelled.

Thursday, November 20, 2003

It's hard to define what exactly "Most Valuable Player" means. Here's my version of who should be the MVP of a league:

If I were starting a team, or if I have a team behind a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance," and I could have this past year's version (statistics, overall performance, and intangibles both offensive and defensive) of any player, who would I take? Who would be the most valuable?

If we're talking about the American League in 2003, there's only one serious choice. And he was in fact the man who was chosen - Alex Rodriguez.

That's why I think Jayson Stark is a moron.

Yeah, the Rangers finished in last place and were out of the pennant races fairly early. (They wouldn't have finished last in any other division in the majors, but we needn't split hairs.) Yes, they'd have presumably finished in the same place without A-Rod.

However, to conclude from this that Rodriguez by definition cannot be most valuable is to penalize him for factors largely outside his control. Alex Rodriguez should not be blamed for his lousy teammates, or for the fact that the entire pitching staff was terrible. Unless he's also the GM, it's not A-Rod's job to run the team; unless he's also the manager, it's not A-Rod's responsibility to determine the best game-level and team-level strategies for the Rangers.

Rodriguez had his usual outstanding season, so outstanding that it's obvious that even Nomar Garciaparra, Derek Jeter, and Miguel Tejada, probably three of the top dozen or so hitting shortstops ever, pale in comparison.

The only possible argument along these lines is that A-Rod, with his notoriously massive contract, inhibited the Rangers from fielding a more competitive team. (Of course, Stark doesn't even bother making this argument.) However, it would make more sense to the blame team management for this contract. And, even then, at least when they pay A-Rod all that money, they pay him to play well. Compare this with paying Chan Ho Park good money to play poorly, or Rusty Greer good money not to play at all. Besides, baseball is not a salary cap league - Rangers ownership could have chosen to spend more money on player salaries if they had wanted to, so there is not a defineable opportunity cost to having Rodriguez on the roster.

The hitters who came closest to A-Rod in terms of offensive production were Manny Ramirez and Carlos Delgado, who play easy defensive positions, and don't even play those positions particularly well. Neither one is as useful on the bases as Rodriguez. In the case of Delgado, his team turned out not to be much more of a contender than the Rangers.
Stark's suggested of David Ortiz, who, while a useful cog in the Boston offensive juggernaut, is very much a one-dimensional player.

A shortstop who hit better than Ortiz did? How could you not choose that person for MVP?

As for pitchers, I have a hard time believing that even the best pitcher, who either only pitches once every five days or for one or at most two innings at a time, can be more valuable than the best everyday position players, at least in this day and age. (Perhaps in the days where most starters completed most of their games and pitched in four-man rotations, they had a stronger case.)

All in all, I'm happy to see that the media for once got the MVP voting correct.

As for the bellyaching about Hideki Matsui not winning the Rookie of the Year: Angel Berroa was better, a fact obscured by media hype about Japanese imports, media hype about the Yankees, and people who pay entirely too much attention to RBI numbers.

Billy the Kid has a new attorney.

I am reminded of when Gov. Michael Dukakis pardoned Sacco and Vanzetti, more than half a century after both were executed.

One thing I'm dreading about being in the same office with a bunch of other attorneys for the next few months:

The Kobe Bryant rape trial.

Talk about the mother of a thousand awkward conversations. Rape. Gender. Race. Class. The urban/rural divide. You name the uncomfortable water cooler topic, it's in there.

Definitely not looking forward to that.

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

A Punchup At A Wedding?

Why couldn’t I celebrate the landmark ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v Commonwealth, the way perhaps I should have?

It’s not because I disagree with anything in the court’s decision. Just reading it nearly brings tears to me eyes. Here was another judicial decision that, in stronger language than I had any right to expect, recognized the dignity of same-sex relationships. Amazingly, all this comes less than 20 years after Bowers v. Hardwick legitimized anti-gay bigotry in the laws of the land.

I’m just scared of what comes next.

There are a lot of people who are extremely angry, and they have a lot of political power. I’m ashamed to share a country with many of them, and I’m especially embarrassed that such people are allowed to have such power. But they are out there.

I can’t say for sure when would have been a better time, but I thought that perhaps in another decade or so, when Lawrence v. Texas would have receded more into memory, when gay men and lesbians would have had ten more years to make their case to the straight majority. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that the gay community should have to wait quietly for a majority, since they may have indeed waited several lifetimes without one. I only merely that seeking a higher level of public support before shopping for the most liberal high court in the land might have been a more prudent course.
I mostly agree with the analysis found in this National Review article, though I obviously don’t share Mr. Kurtz’s anti-gay viewpoint.

Though it was my opinion at the time that Lawrence v. Texas would likely be forgotten about (see July 12) in fairly short order, I see a backlash coming here.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t agree with said backlash.

I hear the “recognizing same-sex marriage/union/whatever will undermine marriage, the family, and the fabric of society” argument a lot, but I have never heard it explained exactly how it would do such a thing. I don’t think this change would do anything to cause heterosexuals to stop marrying and reproducing. If there were to be is any effect at all on the larger society, I would expect it to be positive. Perhaps gay men, or at least a higher percentage of them, will tend more often to settle down and form lasting, monogamous partnerships, which would in turn reduce the transmission rate of sexually transmitted diseases. Perhaps same-sex couples would make conduct their financial lives in a more coordinated fashion, leading to more home ownership, particularly in central cities, which would in turn benefit the local economy in those areas.

The “common wisdom of the ages” argument, as expressed by Governor Mitt Romney“I agree with 3000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court.” could have been used, and in fact was used, in defense of segregation. It was an argument that was used in defense of slavery. Once upon a time, it could have been used in defense of human sacrifice and a whole host of other things that we in the 21st Century find abhorrent.

Others invoke the Bible, which ignores the fact that the Bible is not now and has never been the law of the United States. After all, if it were, not only are gays in trouble, so is anyone wearing polycotton, eating shrimp, or going to work on Sunday.

The Chicken Littles currently sucking up airtime, ink, and bandwidth, clamoring on about the end of civilization and so forth have no truly rational arguments on their side. They have arguments based on religious faith and emotion. It is my hope that perhaps a few fence sitters will watch some of the television programs and see reasonable people making a rational case for equal treatment while not really asking for any real sacrifice from the straight majority on one side, and the hate-filled ranting of people who clearly want their personal hang-ups written into law on the other side. Maybe there is a silent majority (or at least a plurality) that is willing to give the gay community a chance to exercise a right heterosexual couples take for granted and wishes the theocratically inclined would mind their own business. My fear, however, is that the population will respond more to the emotional arguments of the right, the appeals to stereotypes, to phobia, to prejudice.

But this is not about men parading about in bridal dresses screaming “Get used to it!” at the top of their lungs, demanding the right to have sex in public or anything like that.

As it stands, same-sex couples who have been together for decades are in many respects complete strangers in the eyes of the law. In some instances they are denied to the right to visit each other in the hospital. It can be more difficult to inherit property from one’s partner in this situation, where the law may instead place power in the hands of hostile relatives.

All the gay community asks of the rest of the nation is simply to cease trying to write their own prejudices about sex, about relationships, about everyday life, into the law of the land.

Taking off the activist’s hat and replacing it with that of the analyst…

1. Massachusetts.

The legislature has been instructed by the Supreme Judicial Court to remove the restriction against same-sex marriages within 180 days. They will likely choose to resist as much as possible.

There has been a move afoot to place restriction in the state Constitution. After getting the approval of at least 25% of the Massachusetts legislature in two consecutive sessions, the issue of amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage could be brought directly to voters.

Though it is a liberal state, Massachusetts has its share of cultural conservatives, mostly among Catholic and older voters. Those voters are well represented in the legislature, and one of them, House Speaker Tom Finneran (D-Boston), is arguably the most powerful legislator in the state. Though Republicans are not a large factor in the legislature, if they were to lend bloc support to the amendment, they could easily get the issue on the ballot. By some miracle, a particularly harsh proposal put forth by religious conservatives did not receive the necessary votes last session, in part because the possibility of a legalization controversy seemed theoretical at the time.

If it could be done in day, the SJC’s decision would have a good chance of being reversed. 25% is a low threshold. And as it stands now, the proponents would have a good chance of prevailing at the polls, though it would be no sure thing; unlike in some states, where conservative Republicans are the most reliable voters, the high-turnout voters in Massachusetts are more liberal on cultural issues. Gays and their friends would have a particular incentive to turnout and maximize the “no” vote.

Moreoever, the earliest Massachusetts could amend its Constitution to bar same-sex unions is 2006. By then, I do get the feeling that voters, at least in Massachusetts, may realize that the world was not going to end and that the whole issue wasn’t a big deal. Many of the people who thought that perhaps their church was going to be forced by the state to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples will realize they were mistaken. The straight people who thought that this decision would make some huge deleterious impact on their family or their life will realize that very little, if anything, has changed for them.

2. The U.S. Supreme Court

Since the state court in this case ruled primarily on the basis of state constitutional law and not on the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court has no real role here. The doctrine of “equal and independent state grounds” applies here.

However, a court challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act is likely coming, whenever a same-sex couple attempts to have their civil union/marriage recognized by a state that does not recognize such unions. The DoMA, among other things, purports to free states of the obligation to recognize same-sex unions from other states.

Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution mandates that a state give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states. That provision is why states whose principal places of businesses are outside Delaware can incorporate in Delaware, and why people can get married in Las Vegas and have their marriage recognized elsewhere, even if they might not have been otherwise eligible in their own state.

My guess is that the Supreme Court would try to find away around the problem, perhaps by upholding DoMA despite its apparent straightforward conflict with the clear language of the Constitution.


3. The United States of America.

However, even if Massachusetts voters are inclined to allow same-sex unions, the same cannot be said of the nation at large.

So far, the Marriage Amendment has not been pushed hard, in part because the idea of gay marriage seemed more a theory than anything else, Vermont notwithstanding. President Bush, though eager to appeal to his base of religious conservatives, would prefer not to turn off more mainstream suburban voters, who are in general made somewhat uncomfortable by the far right’s obsession with homosexuality, if he could help it. The typical middle-class, white-collar worker, the foundation of the GOP in many states, may have a gay friend or relative, or be gay himself.

But, in some senses, push has come to shove. The base smells blood in the water, so to speak, and demand action. The issue will probably get a few anti-gay conservatives elected somewhere where they otherwise may not have. Less than a decade ago, the Defense of Marriage Act passed easily with overwhelming public support. The whole affair is likely a boon to Bush’s re-election chances in 2004, as it will motivate religious conservatives to turn out and vote Republican. While the issue will not singlehandedly sink the Democratic challenger, since there are many more issues more likely to be on voters’ minds, the administration will now have some cover to move to the center on some issues in order to help them win the 2004 election. (However, as national attitudes change, being seen as the anti-gay party may not be a benefit to the national GOP over the long run.)

To pass a Constitutional Amendment, you need two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and then ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

The proponents probably have plenty of votes in the House, where the can count on near-unanimous support from the Republican majority (maybe 10 defections at most) and somewhere between 40% and 50% of the Democratic caucus, mostly from the South and Midwest.

Though the Senate may provide them with a little drama, they should be able to clear 67 votes there by combining nearly all the Republicans with somewhere between 20 and 25 Democrats, mostly from the Red States.

That leaves the states. Proponents will need ratification by the legislatures of 38 states. Opponents will probably focus on California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states seem like longshots, particularly GOP-controlled New Hampshire.

What gives me hope? Well, history shows that it’s not easy to pass an Amendment. It takes more than a majority. In some cases, even a strong supermajority would be insufficient. Plus, some people who might be sympathetic to the proponents’ cause might flinch at the thought of enshrining this issue in the Constitution.

I am reminded of the battles over the Equal Rights Amendment and the Child Labor Amendment. Both causes had at least as much popular support as a Defense of Marriage Amendment would enjoy now. And yet both those other proposals were ultimately defeated. Of the six amendments (Presidential term limits, a ban on poll taxes, lowering the voting age to 18, modification to the rules of Presidential succession, voting representation in the District of Columbia during Presidential elections, and curbs on Congressional pay raises) that have passed since the Second World War, none inspired the sort of organized opposition that an anti-gay amendment would inspire.

(Of course, one problem was these parallels is that the proponents got much of what they wanted without going the the amendment process – the ERA proponents via various Supreme Court decisions and civil rights laws, the Child Labor Amendment proponents through various laws.)

Either way, the great civil rights struggle of our time has commenced in earnest.

It is my belief that 50 years from now, everyone who supported the anti-gay cause will be remembered by history the same way the segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s are today. I can only imagine with horror how bad a black mark a “Marriage Protection Amendment” will look on the Constitution of the United States of America would look then, if it proves successful.

I need sleep. Therefore, my analysis of the new Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision will have to wait until tomorrow. (Or, really, later today, after work.)

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

I am very proud of my home state today.

And yet I'm very concerned with what may follow in the wake of this huge victory for equal rights for gays and lesbians.

I was in a workplace full of progressive types today, and as the one possibly most affected by the Masachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, I was also the most worried about what might follow, in both Massachusetts and the nation as a whole.

Short version: I'm scared this came a few years too soon. Long version to follow tonight.

Monday, November 17, 2003

Random music-related observations:

Way in the background of Pure Prairie League's "Amie," is a guy signing really high - so high it makes Geddy Lee (Rush) sound like Barry White at his most down-low. I mean, it has to be a castrato or something, right?

On VH1 not long ago, I heard an old live version of Fleetwood Mac's "Rhiannon." What was weird is that it really rocked - I mean it actually sort of kicked ass. The sort of thing you don't expect from that song or, really, that band. Something might have gotten in the band's cocaine that night.

I know it's blasphemy, but I almost prefer the Run-DMC version of "Walk This Way" to the original at this point. (Does it make it any better that a big part of the reason is that I like Joe Perry's solo work on the updated version?)

At the other extreme, the Kid Rock version of Bad Company's "Feel Like Makin' Love" is a desecration of a song that wasn't really very good to begin with. Yes, it's that awful. It's almost as painful as hearing Fred Durst signing/rapping/yelling "I wanna sniff your panties!" on thir latest single.

More blasphemy: The single (4:28) version of Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing" is just better. The other 3-4 minutes of the unabridged version (7:04 on the LP, 8:24 on the CD) are unnecessary.

I nominate "Welcome To The Jungle" as the best opening album track ever. (Even though it's hard to pass on "Baba O' Reilly," "Smells Like Teen Spirit," and "The Spirit of Radio.")

New job today - I return to the building of the infamous "black magic marker" project.

For those who don't remember, the "black magic marker" project involved myself and a large group of other lawyer-larva redcating patient information from medical documents. Using a black magic marker. In a cramped, poorly ventilated room.

Midway through the project, I found out I had passed the bar, but since I needed the money, I stayed on for three more days, until opposing counsel visited the facility, saw us, and complained to the judge about the costs of litigation. A few hours later, we were told the project was suspended. It never resumed, so far as I know. At the time this cancellation was a devastating blow to my finances.

At one point I was so out of it I made up a song called "Black Magic Marker" to the tune of Santana's "Black Magic Woman." At one point, I started singing it. I think it amused most of the room. I wish I remembered the lyrics.

I also remember mentioning my pass-the-bar news too many times the next day - must have been obnxious to my co-workers. Oh, well.

Sunday, November 16, 2003

Brief, Weird, & Pointless Observation #3

Of the IMDB's Bottom 100 Movies Of All Time,
I've only paid to see one of them in a theater,
"Teen Wolf Too."

Although I did chip in for a rental of another film on the list, "Battlefield Earth."

Brief, Weird, & Pointless Observation #2

I will probably have the honor of being the first Fantasy Football player in history to lose a game because my opponent both started Jon Kitna and Peter Warrick.

I will also probably have the honor of being the last Fantasy Football player in history to lose a game because my opponent both started Jon Kitna and Peter Warrick.

Brief, Weird, & Pointless Observation #1

I never knew this line, from Hall & Oates' "Maneater." :

"The woman is wild, a she-cat tamed by the purr of a jaguar."

I mean, I knew the first part, but I hadn't a clue what Darryl Hall was signing during the second part of the line.

Saturday, November 15, 2003

OK...I have to admit that the first thing that grabbed my attention about this story is that the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency goes by the name Dick Pound.

Immediately I am transported to a world of bad cyber-erotica...

Where was I?

Oh, yeah... baseball is not track and field, as Toronto G.M and Worcester boy (shout out!) J.P. Ricciardi wisely points out. It's not pure running, jumping, or lifting. There's only so much performance-enhancing drugs can do for you. If you can't hit, no steroid is going to make you hit. If you're a lousy fielder, andro isn't going to improve your glove work.

That said, the steroid use problem is obviously a major one facing baseball, and it's been noticeably more lax in such matters than other major American team sports, or at least the NFL. I'm sort of relieved that the percentage of players testing positive was low, although that might just be people adept at avoiding testing positive.

It looks like my alma mater hasn't changed that much.

Check out this story from a newspaper I actually used to work for about some group of pranksters putting up phony Howard Dean posters with Confederate flags on them.

I suspect freshmen Dartmouth Review staffers. It's practically their stock in trade. It strikes the right tone of pseudo-clever, of quasi-offensive-but-really-more-inane-than-anything-else, of questionable taste to be a Review stunt. (And yes, the left, especially the anti-Greek left, would from time to time pull similar stunts with some of the same hallmarks.)

I had always assumed that these sort-of-below-the-belt nasty political posters were de rigeur on all college campus settings. Then I discovered that on other college campuses (campi?) people had better things to do, either because:

1. The student body leaned so overwhelmingly to the left that the conservatives didn't bother. (I suppose it's the opposite in some other places, but I've never seen them first-hand.) Dartmouth is not as conservative as its reputation or its history would suggest, but there's this constant pitched battle for the "soul" of Dartmouth between faculty and alumni, between/among students, and such you don't really see elsewhere, even at other Ivy League schools.

I'm not kidding. Even the way a student or alumnus sings the alma mater is inherently a political act. I'll explain later.

2. The student body is so overwhelmingly apolitical that even those inclined to such shenanigans direct things in a different direction. I mean, apolitical may be a majority at Dartmouth, but, at least when I was there, even many the apolitical had this sense that they should be paying attention to the larger world, easy at it was there to shut it all out.

3. The campus is not in a bubble in the middle of nowhere, and there are just better things to do - culture, nightlife, or whatever. (In Hanover, nightlife more or less consists of sucking down cheap beer in fraternity basements.) But more importantly, there's a whole world to interact with in a city like Washington.

I like to think of myself as progressive and open to new ideas and concepts, but I have to confess that I don't generally like much modern sculpture.

Therefore, I find it hilarious that people would confuse a rotted corpse with an avant-garde modern sculpture.

Ugh...a pleasant Saturday morning, and I'm at work. *sigh*

Friday, November 14, 2003

You know, in this time of genetically-modified food items, it would eventually come.

Tomacco.

I'd bet a decent chunk of my paycheck that the National Post will get multiple letters and e-mails correcting them on two points :
1. The spelling of Moe's last name.
2. The fact that it was Homer who invented the "Flaming Moe."

At first I thought perhaps this now notorious screed was satire.

Further investigation on his site, particularly this, indicated that it was not in fact satire.

Then I tried to convince myself that the sort of view espoused there was emblematic of a dying breed. This sort of thing has governed human history for far too long, and men like this know their time is up, so they are left to pine for some idealized place and time, and that they are so angry because they can sense that they are doomed to the dustbin of history.

And then I remembered who was in charge of the most powerful nation on earth.

Then I tried to think of something else. Anything else.

Go see "School of Rock."

According to Whack-a-Pol, a new goofy Flash animation tool designed to help voters pick a president, I should support Carol Mosely-Braun.

There were no categories that read "Lacks sleazy dealings with a rotten regime in Nigeria" and "Has a chance in hell of being elected."

My true preference is still a vague "Anyone But Bush II."

OK, so the United States announced the commencement of something called Operation Iron Hammer.

When I heard the title, I thought to myself "You know, even if there wasn't a Nazi Germany operation by that title (and I didn't recall whether or not there was one), it sounds like the sort of operation name best avoided in the context of an operation presumably designed to pacify a country undergoing internal strife brought on by an invasion. "

Except that, as found by my cyber-friend J.T., it turns out that there was one.

Is it too much to ask for the Pentagon to have a flunky to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen?

Thursday, November 13, 2003

As we speak, Senate Republicans are holding a marathon 30-hour filibuster session regarding what they regard as unfair treatment of a handful of Bush judicial nominees.

I could and probably will eventually write more about the underlying issue, but for now...

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist put up a web poll on his site.

The wording of the question (scroll to bottom of article) would do any spin doctor proud.

Nonetheless, hilarity ensued.

People are probably shocked, but remember when People magazine did a "Sexiest Man Alive" web poll, and a dedicated group of Howard Stern fans stuffed the ballot boxes for "Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf?"

That was five years ago.

Once again, The Onion scores big. It's funny because it's true.

For what it's worth, both my parents have read this blog. One of the myriad of reasons that there's not a whole lot that's personal on here, along with the fact that I can't imagine the public caring enough about my personal life to want to read about it.

Well, my long-neglected blog resurfaces again, mostly because I'm slightly bored at work, with net access.

My next big-time blog project is restarting Jukebox From Hell sometime soon. It's long overdue, and we could all use some distraction.

The Patriots are trying hard to make Red Sox Nation forget about what transpired in the ALCS. It's not quite working, but it's nice all the same.

My Allison LaPlaca Open ballot is trailing the pack, since the only show I have correctly is "The Brotherhood of Poland, New Hampshire." I even missed "Skin," though in all fairness I had to make my selection before I was deluged with commercials for it during the baseball playoffs.

Talk about a trio of annoying commericials...
"His father...is the district attorney!"
"He's not a criminal mastermind...he's just a kid with nowhere to go!"
"And for ze best part..he's riii-ich!"


One down, two to go.

Tuesday, November 04, 2003

How To Disappear Completely

Well, as you may have guessed, things have gotten insanely busy here the last few days, as I am now working ungodly hours in the hopes of improving my short-term financial situation.

Hopefully my links will provide you with enough entertainment until I return, sometime next week.

Powered by Blogger