The Answer Guy Online

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

Thursday, February 26, 2004

Why I Read Baseball Primer During The Offseason

So I'm looking through a thread about Johnny Damon's weird new hairstyle, and I find this:

  Jim Caviezel has signed on to play Johnny Damon in "The Cowboy Of The Up", the story of the very, very, very excruciating and cruelly repetitive demise of the 2003 Boston Red Sox.

And then someone follows up with:

Will the collision w/Jackson be shown in super slo-mo, w/blood gushing out of Caviezel's head?

Now there's a running joke that skewers Johnny Damon's looks and "The Passion" at the same time.

Of course, since this is sports and Jesus, naturally my next thought is of Jesus, eccentric character played by John Turturro in "The Big Lebowski."

So, a few posts down, before I have the chance to act on the joke:

Mariano Rivera: You ready to be f***ed man? I see you rolled your way into the playoffs. Dios mio, man. Liam and me, we're gonna **** you up.
Johnny Damon: Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Flirtin’ With Disaster (Part I)

A couple weeks back, another blogger made a post saying that he was annoyed with Republican politicians backing away from comments about offshoring and outsourcing by a White House advisor that made perfect sense to him.

The fact that said advisor’s comments were political poison was so obvious I felt like I’d be insulting the guy’s intelligence if I pointed it out. (Although it’s even worse for them politically than at first glance, for reasons I’ll explain some other time.)

Instead, I posted the thought that I believed a free-trade regime of the sort he and the advisor were advocating was going to lead to disaster. This person was deeply offended by my suggesting this and was told me that I didn’t understand basic economics. (He backed away from some of it later, wondering why he got so upset.)

But I still felt like I should explain myself more fully, and I intended to, except that my busy life sort of got in the way. So here goes…

Capital and labor are both assets, albeit of a different type. Ceteris paribus, the mobility of an asset tends to increase its value.

In a closed, isolated economic system, labor and capital are equally mobile, which is to say neither is particularly mobile. When an economy is opened, both capital and labor become more mobile – but it’s clear to me that capital becomes more mobile than labor. It has, over the centuries, become easier to transport money across state and national boundaries and even oceans than working people, due to a number of factors – immigration restrictions, language and sociocultural barriers, and the expense incurred in transferring people . As technology has improved, transaction costs – that mostly relate to the movement of capital - have dropped.

As it stands, capital can be moved anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes. Labor, while more mobile than was once the case, cannot be moved anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes. The owner of capital therefore has access to assets around the world, an access by and large denied to those who are selling their labor. The scales are obviously tipped toward capital and against labor, relative to our traditional notions of an employee/employer relationship. Now in the case of some advanced societies, the line between capital and labor is obviously blurred a bit. But this shift in bargaining power (in addition to economies of scale) still affects them as the system is skewed towards the large capital holder over the small capital holder, especially if it’s the case that the small capital holder is using income earned from labor to acquire said capital.

This progression has been going on for over a century, but this disparity in mobility is growing exponentially. As labor loses bargaining power, wealth and purchasing power tend to accumulate to those who already hold wealth, while those who have only their labor, even skilled labor, to sell will see comparatively less and less purchasing power. (Wealth, strictly speaking, is not a zero-sum game, but purchasing power, especially in the short run, is purely relative.)

The worker’s costs of living will continue to be set in his or her immediate area, but what he or she can earn will be set to the level of the cheapest labor employers can find, anywhere in the world. Would prices go down to match falling wages in this situation? Some markets (housing in particular) are less responsive to quick changes in the overall market picture than others. Eventually prices would fall to match wages and drops in demand for nearly all goods, but only after widespread dislocation, mass bankruptcy, and probably, social upheaval. The result is not so much exploitation in the Marxist sense as it a systemic bias towards accumulation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer entities, who have less obligation to nations, workers, or to anything save the further accumulation of money. (And this is before one considers the ways in which the wealthy are able to game the markets.)

Some of those competing workers, by the way, are in countries whose governments have policies to hold down wages, discourage workers from organizing, and turn a blind eye to slave labor, who serve, unwittingly, as a wage sink for the rest of the world. (Which, incidentally, is why I take any argument about unfairly keeping the Third World down with skepticism about globalization made by a free-trade fundamentalist with a grain – nay, a whole shaker - of salt.) Other nations are consequently placed under pressure to curtail any worker protections they have enacted, to shred any social safety they might have, to remove any environmental regulations that inhibit the bottom line of transnational concerns, and so forth. I don’t believe the results will be better for anyone, anywhere, except maybe for the transnational corporations for whom the dice have been loaded.

And while were at it, two more issue that bug me about trade treaties that don’t come up often in the press :

A. The main beneficiaries of the sort of trade agreements being proposed and enacted are transnational corporations. They are the ones writing the rules by which nations are to trade.
Rules protecting labor rights or environmental health are considered “trade barriers” that need to be done away with. But rules protecting, for instance, intellectual property rights are not, even though in many cases they are potentially every bit the trade barrier labor or environmental protections are. They are in fact a routine part of trade agreements and questioned by few. I’m not saying that intellectual property isn’t worth protecting – I am merely suggesting what it says about the priorities of “free trade,” if the rights of workers are considered an anachronism and the rights of Disney or Pfizer are not.

B. Except when it benefits them, national sovereignty is an inconvenient obstacle. The World Trade Organization, for instance, has semi-secret courts, to rule on trade disputes, that in theory at least have the power to override national laws deemed hostile to the flow of international trade. (I understand that it’s unlikely that the U.S or the European Union would have their laws scuttled in such a way – that only makes the arrangement less fair to third-world countries with less bargaining power.) This would be even better for the transnationals than seeking out “tax havens” or “regulatory havens” like the Cayman Islands, since large countries or trading blocs might some day decide to make life for tax exiles (whether corporate or individual) more difficult.

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Weapons of Math Instruction

Apparently, Secretary of Education Rod Paige referred to the National Education Association as a "terrorist organization."

This is probably because they all have at least one almanac in their posession, which Attorney General Ashcroft told everyone to look out for.

These people need to go, including Paige, not just because he's an insensitive fool who's quick to slander his political opponents in the worst terms he can think of. They're brimming with ideas, but they're all bad ideas, and, in the case of educational policy, they won't even fund them, making the new federal education mandates both more burdensome and more counterproductive without the saving grace of more money. Now there's a move afoot for states to opt of of No Child Left Behind, led not by liberal "blue" states but Utah and Virginia.

Sunday, February 22, 2004

Ralph's Nadir

He's running again.

At least this time people should better understand that a vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush's re-election.

Saturday, February 21, 2004

Miles Away

Bill Simmons wonders aloud whether he and his fellow Patriots fans have developed a sense of entitlement similar to that of Yankee fans after writing a column where he mused that two titles isn't enough.

He correctly concluded that Pats fans haven't reached that level.

And yet he missed what was perhaps the crucial point in the analysis. It's not just the last few years that count. On the list of NFL teams whose fans been spoiled rotten by their team's success, the Pats aren't even close.

The Yankees are the Yankees in large part because there is no one else in their "league." Apart from short stretches roughly centered around 1968 and 1990, the Yankee fans have been rewarded year after year. Laker fans are right up there with them. The NFL has no one team like this, though, off the top of my head, I'd have to cite Cowboys and 49ers fans as being those most insulated from suffering, although even those teams have had some big down years.

The Patriots? Two Super Bowls in three years, plus two Super Bowl flameouts from the preceding two decades, three of those coming more or less out of nowhere. If they win a third, maybe we can start talking about entitlement, but even then, you have to balance those years of failure: Ron Erhardt. Ron Meyer. Rod Rust. Dick McPherson. It's not especially close. As this (not quite up to date) chart indicates, a team that is expected to have won 1.4 Super Bowls over its current lifetime has now won 2.0. That's a long way off from Yankee fandom.

Also: Via Craig, I just had to pass this article along.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

The Pledge

Look like the wild roller-coaster ride that was the Howard Dean campaign is finally over.

I'm in a mild form of mourning over this fact, but I've had a bad feeling about how things were going since Jan. 13, the night Dean failed to gain a majority in a "beauty contest" primary from which the other major candidates at the time (Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Gephardt and Lieberman) had opted out, leaving only Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, Kucinich, and a cast of even more marginal players, including Renaissance nutcase Lyndon LaRouche and the notorious Vermin Supreme.

Dean's signs were all over town, and his volunteers (including yours truly) were dropping literature and appearing at polling places across the city, and yet, it didn't seem to matter much as the city's African-American majority overwhelmingly went for Al Sharpton instead.

I thought that was a bad sign but fellow Deaniacs were more sanguine than I, and I suppose there was cause to believe in a movement that brought an obscure presidential candidate from asterisk territory to the top of the heap in a few short months.

Then came Iowa, where it seemed that Dean's people had no idea what they were doing when it came to navigating their way through the Iowa Caucuses. His campaign spent a lot of money running ineffective TV ads attacking Dick Gephardt. What ultimately happened was that Gephardt's campaign imploded, and in a sense took Dean down with him, as Gep's considerable support in Iowa broke late for Kerry and Edwards and not for Dean.

The resources spent in Iowa were designed to deliver the knockout blow, and it was a missed punch that left the campaign thrown for a loop. After the endorsements (Al Gore, Tom Harkin, Bill Bradley, Carol Mosely-Braun) came rolling in, there was an air of inevitably around Dr. Dean, and it seems silly to second-guess the strategy (if not the tactics) now.

Then of course came the infamous "Iowa Scream." Was it overhyped in the press? You bet. But the fact remains that Dean had to have known by then that the media didn't particularly like him and that they were going to play up any chance to portray Dean as "angry" or "crazy."

Then came New Hamsphire, and Kerry just rode the Iowa momentum through the Granite State, as a fair number of Clark and Lieberman (and Gephardt, who had dropped out) backers switched to Kerry in the final week. Dean held on to a good deal of his prior support, but it wasn't enough.

In other years, it would have been easier to recover momentum lost in those first two rounds, but with primary season so frontloaded now, that's not the case anymore.

Dean had to by and large sit out the Febuary 3 contests (MO, AZ, SC, OK, NM, DE, ND) , in large part, amazingly, due to lack of funds. They by and large weren't good states for Dean anyway, but with better resource allocation early on he could have picked a state from the group besides New Mexico (Arizona, most likely) to sink money into.

Kerry scored big victories in 5 of those states, losing only Oklahoma (to Clark, then Edwards) and South Carolina (to Edwards) and was able to parlay this aura of supposed invincibility straight into weekend bouts in Michigan, Maine, and Washington. Dean put up respectable numbers in Maine and Washington, but it wasn't enough.

With no pretentions of being competitive in Virginia and Tennessee (in retrospect, these contests will probably be seen, Virginia in particular, as where Edwards was mortally wounded) by this point, Dean chose Wisconsin as his last stand. The polls were grim, and the returns were scarcely better. Saturday's caucus here in D.C., where Kerry got nearly half the vote and Sharpton edged Dean for second, were a grim harbinger of things to come in the Badger State.


It's decision time for Dean as to what to do with his future, and his role in this year's election. As for me....tonight seems as good a time as any to take
The Pledge.
We hold this truth to be self-evident:

Having George W. Bush as President has been and will continue to be a disaster.

We will not let our partisanship towards any particular candidate for President cause us to lose sight of this basic truth. As such, we pledge ourselves not to become enablers of any campaign designed to divide us in our struggle to remove Bush from power. We pledge that no more will we be:

Tools of those who would disrupt the Anybody-But-Bush movement.

Partisans who would rather bring down the other guy's candidate than find reason to elevate our own.

Dupes who will automatically assume that anything negative about the other guy's candidate is more likely to be true than the negative things said about our guy.

Fools who lose sight of the ultimate goal: the defeat of George W. Bush on November 2nd, 2004.

We will uphold this pledge to the best of our ability.

We will encourage others to do the same.

So there you have it.

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Back Into Hell

Enough talk. Jukebox From Hell is underway.

Blogging here may be light for the next few days.

Monday, February 16, 2004

Derek And The Dominoes

Only one album, but, man, what a doozy.

Great blues covers, but some of the originals ("Bell Bottom Blues") are even better. Of course, "Layla" is the cut everyone knows, but there's so much more, with memorable riffs by the truckload, and some absolutely blistering solos from Eric Clapton and Duane Allman.

Somehow this crew conjured up a version of the Jimi Hendrix tune "Little Wing" that sounds nothing at all like the original (despite the same melody, lyrics, and even tempo) but still works.

Whereas Hendrix' original was the perfect tune to listen to in a field on a warm summer day with eyes pointed straight at the sky, this rendition seems more appropriate as a soundtrack for an angry mob storming a government building.

Plus the album, as a longtime favorite of my Dad's, brings back childhood memories.

Generals And Majors

Maybe Colin Powell is losing it.

Check out this story, where he chews out an (unnamed) Congressional staffer in the middle of a question because he was silently shaking his head at yet another attempt by an administation member at whitewashing the fact that, when it comes to alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they either had no idea what they were talking about or simply lied to the public. I still want to have a little more respect for him than other Bush insiders (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al.) but sometimes he makes it hard. The lashing out, not generally characteristic of him, could be cognitive dissonance.

Now, Powell would be perfectly justified in ripping the poor guy had he actually opened his mouth. But Capitol Hill is not a military installation, at least not yet. You may ex officio be entitled to some measure deference and respect, but you can't unilaterally make people bend to your will. (This is one reason I am wary of career military officials - who are accustomed to having their orders followed with no questions asked - in the give-and-take world of the political arena.)

The other story of course is that Congressional Democrats are less timid about fighting fire with fire when it comes to attack-dog politics. I suppose you can only have your patriotism questioned so many times before you hit back.

Make no mistake about this - Powell's just as culpable as the rest of the Bush crew. He no less deserves to be summarily ejected from office than the rest of them.

The Empire Strikes Back

As a card-carrying member of Red Sox Nation, you knew this post was coming, didn't you?

OK, back when I was an geeky undergrad, I used to play "Magic: The Gathering." It got boring when there were certain people who always had the extra dough to buy thousands of Magic cards, or plop down the dough for those extra-special rare cards - so that there I was with my deck of mere mortal cards (with the occassional sem-cool card or combo, like, say, Nettling Imp-Royal Assassin or The Rack-Hypnotic Spectre or something) and these guys had these Legends, and all these multi-lands, and a Beta Black Lotus, and these incredibly powerful cards I'd hardly ever heard of... and I would of course get my ass kicked.

The news that Alex Rodriguez will be wearing pinstripes next season reminds me a bit of those days in Hanover when I gradually decided that M:TG was a waste of time.

Of course, my own favorite team, depending on your metric, ranks somewhere between second and fifth in shelling out salary money, and tried pulling off a similar move, but it was essentially scuttled because the Red Sox couldn't afford what turned out to be necessary to make the move. And of course the games are played on the field, not in paper.

It'd be even worse if I were a fan from, say, Pittsburgh or Milwaukee or Detroit or Kansas City. One wonders how long MLB expects them to stick around.

Great line from an IM conversation with Craig: If MLB were a half-decent video game, the system wouldn't allow this trade. One poster on Baseball Primer said that while most MLB teams were like the guys that played in 20-team leagues discussing the relative merits of Damian Miller and Dan Wilson as starting catchers, and the Yankees are the kid that comes in from an 6-team league where he's wondering whether he should start Tejada or Nomar at shortstop.

The good news: Sports Illustrated will almost certainly pick the Yankees to win the World Series this year, which, if recent history is any indicator, is a guarantee that it won't happen.

Meanwhile, my bedroom back in Worcester still has a bunch of M:TG cards. I wonder if they're still worth something.

Sunday, February 15, 2004

Burn In Hell

The new Jukebox From Hell field is finally done.

The madness will commence this week.

Saturday, February 14, 2004

Happy Valentine's Day.

Bah. Humbug.

Friday, February 13, 2004

Pure Drivel

Apparently today has been designated as a Day of Purity by pro-abstience organizations.

It's my usual role, I suppose, to make fun of these people, though I must concede that insofar as they are simply passing out literature that suggests that teenage sex isn't necessarily a good idea, they're not really doing harm.

However, as the average age of marriage approaches 30 in some parts of the country, asking humans to abstain from sexual activity until they are almost 30 is sort of like telling a river to stop flowing. Either way, have fun, but you've got fundamental laws of nature against you. Teenage girls and boys have been having sex since the dawn of time - it's only in the last century in the developed world that that's been considered anything other than 100% healthy. At least for teenage girls. There's some biological basis for double standards I suppose, but you just know that your average middle-class suburban father wants his daughter to stay away from boys but worries that if his son's not getting any that it's a sign he's gay.

And of course these types of organizations tend to have a bigger agenda - anti-gay, anti-contraception, anti-sex education, and probably in favor of getting federal funding for the sham that is "abstinence only" sex education.

As I've heard it said elsewhere, to be a Christian conversative one seemingly must believe that if you don't tell teenagers about sex, they won't have sex.

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Texas Justice

Sometimes I think Texas must exist to make me laugh.

They're actually going to put a woman on trial for selling sex toys.

Apparently, her big mistake in the eyes of the law is selling sex toys as ways to enhance sexual activity, and not selling them as "novelty" items. It is not even the case, as it is in Alabama at present, that you can own sex toys but not sell them.

It makes you wonder what was going on in the Texas Legislature the day that bill was passed.

It also makes me wonder what it would be like to be a fly on the wall, either at this trial (if it happens) or at the Tupperware-like party events where these things are sold.

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Paint The White House Black

The man who operates the notorious porn website (Note: Not work safe!) is putting the domain up for sale.

The amusing thing is that he's doing it for the sake of his child, whom he doesn't want seeing the material. Never mind everyone else's children who are looking for the President's web site and finding pornography. not to mention the extremely irritating tendency of porn sites to self-generate a seemingly infinite number of pop-up windows that spontaneously generate other pop-up windows when one tries to close one of them. I am sort of amazed, as an attorney with at least some knowledge of the laws governing cyberspace, that someone in government or business didn't find a way to put these people out of business.

In the meantime, I highly recommend (Note: Unless you're working at the RNC, probably work safe.)

Cheap Shot

Apparently Dr. Atkins was obese.

Monday, February 09, 2004

Choice Quote From Bush Interview

"I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman."

No kidding, George. That's why you've got to go.

If this isn't all over T-shirts this summer, some part of me will be disappointed.

Friday, February 06, 2004

The Devil & Kurt Warner

So, apparently, there's a big to-do in St. Louis about Kurt Warner insinuating that he was benched due to his religious beliefs during a church service. Mike Martz got offended, Marc Bulger got offended, and the media had a field day.

The truth, of course, is Warner has recently alternated between injury and ineptitude. Warner is probably fully aware of these facts, and said something out of context that got blown out of proportion.

But I wasn't even thinking about that.

The whole time I'm reading this, I'm thinking to myself...
Kurt Warner came out of nowhere and was an incredibly good quarterback - as good as any in the NFL - for two seasons and change. Then, the magic was gone and suddendly he was one of the worst quaterbacks in the NFL, even on a team with the kind of offensive talent that could make almost any signal caller look good. Now, he's apparently found religion, and in a loud fashion. Is this to make up for a deal he signed with the Devil that's now expired?

I wonder if this makes me a bad person.

Thursday, February 05, 2004

Road To Nowhere

I'd long been thinking about the soul-killing aspects of homogenized suburban culture in America, how I thought it was psychologically damaging in ways I couldn't quite put my finger on. The increased isolation, the increased stress of modern life seems to drive a sense of alienation.

I was also thinking about how dependent America in particular is on consuming an ever greater share of the world's energy resoruces. The environmental consciousness movement notwithstanding, our land usage and settlement patterns and daily activities, as well as our consumer preferences, are driving us towards more and more resource consumption. There are two big problems with this, the second of which is even more frightening than the first.

1. There's going to be more competition for resource consumption, particularly from India, China, and other industrializing states.

2. Even if even one-third of the population of China and India starts consuming fossil fuel at the rate Americans do, the carrying capacity of the planet will change dramatically, and likely not for the better.

I was pointed to this article by a friend of mine, that tied these two things together.

It's not my belief that Americans are by nature any worse than anyone else in the world. I simply wonder if the way humanity will destroy itself is playing out here first and the USA, by virtue of being the most affluent and technologically advanced country on the planet, is the first wave. While humans can manipulate their environment like no other species in history, they may not be able to adapt their own lives to conditions if needed.

Goodbye, Columbus?

A federal judge, citing antitrust laws, has just ruled Maurice Clarett eligible for the NFL draft.

I'm still not sure how I feel about this.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

I Have Seen The Future?

I'd been thinking of writing about how the Dean movement, even if unsuccessful in and of itself, was a very good thing for the Democratic party and liberalism in general.

But then I found this "fictional" article from the future, which more or less crystallized my hopes about how the 2004 election is going to go.

My chief reservation - assuming that Kerry is the nominee - is that a lot of people seem to be making their choice for the nominee based on who they think other people will like rather than who excites them. Which could lead to turnout problems in November.

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Primary Colors

Most of the votes have been counted from today's primaries and caucuses and John Kerry has emerged, as expected, as the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Edwards by winning South Carolina did what he had to do to stay in contention, but not much more. Wesley Clark is hurting even after his narrow win in Oklahoma due to very weak showings in Missouri and South Carolina, two states where you would have thought Clark had some appeal. Dean had a bad night and has slid all the way to 4th in the pecking order, though his supporters were ready for the weak showings. Lieberman is now officially finished, and Sharpton and Kucinich are of course just sideshows at this point.

As someone who had been backing Howard Dean, this comes as something of a disappointment, as there's too much of Al Gore 2000 and Bob Dole '96 in the Kerry campaign for my taste.

I've been happy to support John Kerry as my former senator but I can't point to anything of importance he's accomplished in 18 years in the U.S. Senate. For my taste he does vote the right way most of the time but that's about the best I can say for him. And even then, what do you say about someone who voted "No" on the first Gulf War and "Yes" on this one? His resume, of course, seems almost too good to be true, but Vietnam to many people is ancient history now.

The highest praise I can think to heap upon him is that he'd be a far better president than the one currently occupying the White House.

I think of Kerry, Edwards, and Clark, Edwards is my favorite, due to his message, his status as a Southerner, and the way he can turn on the charm.

Monday, February 02, 2004

Super Bowl Redux

Still taking it all in.

Brady was clutch as usual, but I think I'd have given the MVP trophy to Mike Vrabel. A sack, a key fumble recovery, and a TD pass caught - not exactly a common combination of feats in a single game.

The Pats mostly played a good game, and they had to, because the Panthers surprised everyone by being able to air out the ball.

Good thing the game was a thriller, and my boys came out on top. It helped dull the pain of the inanity and insanity that came with the package. It was a truly great game - tense minutes where nothing happened, only to see instant bursts of offense and one shift in momentum after another - that transcended the endless sea of hype that it dragged in its wake.

So...CBS's broadcasting standards compelled them to refuse to show an ad from critical of the Bush administration.

But, more importantly, they can run anti-drug ads. And anti-tobacco ads. Since those aren't political. Or something.

And their high standards include that lovely halftime show. (And it seems pretty clear to me that And a whole bunch of puerile TV commercials. I never in my life thought I'd agree 100% with Tom Shales.

I'm no prude. Nor am I that interested in PC hypersensitivity. But there were kids watching that program at that hour, and - ah, never mind. Just makes me sound old, I guess.

Best commercials? The Staples ad rang hilariously true for anyone who's ever dealt with an office manager. The anti-smoking ad with the "Shards O' Glass popsicles" was funny too. The Budweiser commercial with the mule who wanted to be a Clydesdale was cute.

Worst commercial? Not only was the horse flatulence in poor taste, the idea was stolen from "Seinfeld." And those AOL ads with the funny cars and motorcycles - a bad ad concept repeated over and over. And I don't want to think about a talking chimp copulating with a woman. I also don't want to think about a sales pitch for a drug that might give me a four-hour erection. Or anything that might give Mike Ditka an erection - for any length of time.


Super Bowl XXXVIII
New England 32, Carolina 29

Another Super Bowl, another dramatic finish, another Super Bowl championship.

This of course makes it somewhat harder to bitch about the misfortunes of Boston's other sports franchises; not that it will necessarily stop me.

Sunday, February 01, 2004


About three hours to go before kickoff. I'll be at a party, so I won't be keeping the Super Bowl diary I was thinking about keeping, at least not live.

Go Pats!

Powered by Blogger