A Dainty Sip of Rare Completeness

Last night, I went out again with someone I had met almost a month ago. As it happened, when I first met her, she was due to go away, so it would be a good three weeks at least before we'd get to hang out again. As chance would have it, now that she's back, I'm due to leave. Our third time out together may well be next month. She doesn't seem bothered by the whole one date per month thing. She says we have all the time in the world to get to know one another. Needless to say, things are starting out slowly with her, but I should know enough by now not to be deceived. Some of the slowest starts have led to major escalations in a short space of time. She offered to give me a Harry Potter book and a book about Dublin, so maybe that's a good sign, I don't know. While my third time out with her may be a while, it was only a few hours before I went out again last night. Saturday night is "going out on the town" night. Irene has now more or less moved in with Stephanie in Medford, and by "more or less moved in", I mean she sometimes sleeps there. Last night for example, she slept there.

I had gone over to Stephanie's place and we hung out, watching some television for a bit. When Irene arrived, the vodka popped open, and before heading out, Irene got a head start.

Stephanie drove downtown and she parked in a garage not far from Beacon Hill and Government Center. We walked through Fanuiel Hall, looking for cool places to go. We finally settled on the Black Rose. Stephanie and Irene marched straight upstairs. I've been to the Black Rose, but not upstairs. We took turns buying rounds. Stephanie happened to meet some guy named Brian. As they talked, I chatted with Irene about Germany, animatronics, and Barack Obama, and by animatronics and Barack Obama, she means that I remind her of an animatronic Barack Obama.

I caught the end of the game and after the Red Sox won in extra innings, the live band played "Sweet Caroline". For the uninitiated, Neil Diamond's song is played near the end of Red Sox games. Nobody is quite sure how that tradition started, but as far as I know, the New York Rangers are the only other professional sports franchise that pipes the tune throughout the arena near the end of games, especially if they are winning.

Irene, on the other hand, was a little bit of salt and sweetness. Impressive, given that she wasn't even drinking a margarita. They say vodka connects people, and the over the course of the evening, it connected her. As I leaned against the bar, she leaned on me, often putting her arm on me in various spots, which I think was just her way of trying to find my failsafe switch to shut me down (I may be animatronic, but I have no off switch) or to prevent her from falling down or both.

She met a guy that intrigued her. As we stood there, she pointed and said, "Hey, it's Jim Gaffigan". The guy did look a lot like Jim Gaffigan. She talked to him for a bit, but then Jim Gaffigan slowly meandered off, probably in search of some hot pockets. After sitting on the sofa for a bit with Irene, I thought she was doing a lot better. She went to the ladies room and when she emerged, she headed straight for the exit. Stephanie was still talking with Brian at the bar. She looked at me and at Irene and just gave a look that essentially said, "Excuse me...Neil? Where is she going?" I gestured back, "I really have no idea, but I'm going to make sure she doesn't get hit by a bus or something."

Irene very nearly did just that. I literally had to pull her in and away from the street. She then leaned back on the hood of someone's parked car and at that point, she was all but gone. Amazingly, she wasn't passed out entirely. She was still quite responsive. There were no fewer than twenty-five people who passed by doing one of several things; laughing, pointing, asking if she's okay, etc. "Man, that's a tough night, huh?" said one guy as he passed by in a cab. "Is she okay?" said another one. "Is she dead?" a few people asked. "She's fine," I said, and Irene proved me a teller of truth by giving a thumbs up. Two guys thought it funny to whiz on the sidewalk, but they didn't think it was so funny when Boston's Finest drove by and yelled out, "Hey...you...get over here!" At that moment, some other guy came over and laughed. He told me, "I've been arrested for a lot less than that". In the meantime, I texted Stephanie, trying to tell her our whereabouts. "Defcon freaking One...excuse me Neil...I repeat, Neil...this is not a drill...", I texted her. She texted back, still trying to find us. Finally, she spotted us and then told me she'd go get the car. Irene got a bit sick before Stephanie arrived, but it could have been worse. I helped Irene into the car, and I saw Brian in the front seat with Stephanie.

We all returned safely to Stephanie and Irene's place. Irene pretty much crashed right away while Brian and Stephanie munched on Rolos. She whisphered to me how much she liked Brian. I told Stephanie at the start of the evening, that she had to give at least two guys her number. She didn't quite get the two guys, but this one would do. I left the two of them and then went home. She has Brian and Greg now. Well, she doesn't so much have Greg, but she has his laptop and a Harry Potter book...and now Brian. Who could ask for anything more? Stephanie likes to say her life is a veritable shit show, but I seem to think she's doing just fine. Irene will be just fine, too. No worries. It's nothing that a sausage egg McMuffin won't fix. That's why those things were invented! As for me, I'm just fine, too. I have several Harry Potter books, a computer, and a girl who wanted to give me one of her Harry Potter books.

I also, technically still have biology homework, but you know, tsk, details!

Harry Potter is Not a Transformer

I have yet to see the new Harry Potter film and I will admit, I have not yet bought my copy of "Deathly Hallows". I just find it comical to see so many people riding the T every morning, halfway through their own copy of the finale of this inaccurately named trilogy. Sorry - wrong book series. I was thinking of Douglas Adams and his "Hitchhiker's Guide" books. What would you call a series of seven books? A septology?

Thankfully, nobody has ruined the last book for me...yet. I think it's funny how some people are racing to the finish line. They want to be the first to find out what happens to Harry Potter and to answer all the other questions Rowling has thrown our way over the past several years. I have friends who are actually competing with one another, trying to find out how many pages the other has read, just so that they can be sure to stay ahead of them. I'm too busy right now to read the book yet, but when I do have time to read it, I won't be in any rush.

I was thinking how funny it would be if I got on the train one morning with a copy of the book with a bookmark near the last page. I would start pretending to read, close the book, and call out "well that sucked" or "that's it?", then go on with my business. I could have a little more fun and get on a different train the next day. I would start the same routine, but then after closing the book I could either laugh outrageously or start sobbing.

Or better yet..."wow, so it seems like there will be an eighth book..."

Kurt's Theory of Evolution

In just a few short weeks, I will celebrate the anniversary of accepting my current job in the Greater Boston area. I still stand firm in saying that moving to Boston was one of the single best decisions I've ever made. Again, I have nothing against New Haven, but I needed the change. In that time, I've met a lot of women, enriched my knowledge, started the ball rolling on a career change, bought a condo, and discovered the "city" boy in me.

Having completed Biology I, where we learned all about cell biology and genetics, I have returned this week to start Biology II, which will deal with ecology and evolution. Today, we already learned about cladograms and phylogenic trees. This may be good preparation for my upcoming trip. I'm hoping to uncover the secrets buried deep under the city of Prague which may lend some important clues to the evolution of Pilsner, for example.

Stephanie is in this course, too. She is more concerned with the evolution of her relationship with Greg and with Greg's relationship with his current girlfriend. In physics, where we all met, we referred to all this as an uncomfortable geometry. Now, between Greg and Stephanie, there exists a completely chaotic eco-system. Maybe this course will teach her just enough ecology and evolution to sort it all out. She comes into the course with quite a bit of knowledge on the topic already, as she teaches some of it to her ELL students. As she grapples with what to do about Greg, she has found that relying on songs helps her relate to what's going on in her life. Kelly Clarkson's "Beautiful Disaster" and ABBA's "Under Attack" seem to define her situation quite well. I also believe in the power of music and songs to speak the language of those things we sometimes have a tough time deciphering or saying. None of that is as bad as Hungarian, however. Fortunately, I have a copy of "Just Enough Hungarian", which will hopefully help me get by while I'm in Budapest. I have to brush up on my German for when I'm in Berlin and Vienna. It won't help me very much though in Prague, Krakow, or Warsaw.

Yes, songs are great. I was listening to "Mamma Mia" the other day and I realized something. ABBA has a song for just about every possible situation in which you can find yourself. It's the "finding yourself" part that I'm still struggling with, however. Just when you think you've figured it out, you realize you have not.

Elicitation Question: If you could choose one song from ABBA that could descibe your life at this moment, what would it be?

For me, it's always changing and evolving, but right now it's:

Take a Chance on Me

If you change your mind, I'm the first in line
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know,
gonna be around
If you've got no place to go, if you're feeling down
If you're all alone when the pretty birds have flown
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
Gonna do my very best and it ain't no lie
If you put me to the test, if you let me try
Take a chance on me
Take a chance on me
We can go dancing, we can go walking, as long as we're together
Listen to some music, maybe just talking, get to know you better
'Cos you know I've got
So much that I wanna do...

Of course, this goes for me as well. I've got to take a few chances, too. I took the chance on moving, I took the chance on changing careers, and I took the chance on a few people I have met. I don't blink an eye when booking trips here, there, and elsewhere. I thrive on travel. If I could do all those things without any angst, then everything else should be easy. My question is why isn't everything else just as easy? Physics, for example, is not easy. Why can't that be easy? Chemistry is not easy, either. Yeah, chemistry. I'll have to take that again soon, and that's going to be a challenge. Chemistry is such an interesting subject, though. It's all about atoms. I mean, in the grand scheme of it all, that's all we are and all any of this is! You have to know all about ionic and covalent bonds. You talk a lot about energy and reactions, too. Sometimes you just need the proper catalyst in an experiment. Sometimes you don't get it right the first time. In fact, you often screw things up royally. However, the beautiful thing about science is that if it doesn't work the first time, you pick up and try it again. You will never achieve perfection, but you've got to be comfortable with what you have. You can't rush things or race through the steps. You want to take the time to get it right...to make it work. At the end of the day, quality still trumps quantity.

It's a lot like baseball. If you go out there and you lose the game, there's no reason to hang your heads. Remember, there's no crying in baseball! You just go back out there and you try it again. You go out there with the confidence that you have a good team and that you can still contend for the pennant. You have to believe you are the best team and that nobody else will beat you, unless they prove otherwise. Right now, the Red Sox are ahead in the AL East. They should be able to hold on, but if they doubt themselves or start to worry too much about a possible resurgence by the Yankees, then they could lose their cool and their edge. As long as they keep going out there and giving it their all every game, with the determination that they will win each and every game they can, they should be fine. So my life is like an ABBA song. It's like the Red Sox. It's not like beets, however.

It's like biology. It's an evolution.

The Bio Files

I started my biology class this week. This is a two-week intensive course, where we are cramming a semester's worth of content into a very small space of time. The days are long, but the payoff is that at the end of the two weeks, we will be done. Of course, then we start right up with Biology II. The upshot is that it pays off in more ways than one, in that essentially, we are earning $600 for taking both courses. That's because of the way this grant is set up. You want to pay me to take a class? Sure. I might prefer sleeping in on these lazy summer days, but I won't make $30 a day. Last semester, I took that physics class at Northeastern, and now I'm taking these summer courses at UMass-Boston. So far, I am massing knowledge. You mass knowledge at UMass-Amherst, where I took courses back in 1996-1997...and you mass knowledge in Boston, too!

Some interesting people in the class. There is Fruit of the Room, the highly knowledgeable science teacher who thinks he is Mr. Know-It-All. He actually convinces you of this until he says something so random, so ridiculous, and non-sequitor that you kick yourself for buying his line of utter bull. He is Fruit of the Room because he clearly exhibits a more feminine persona at times, though I don't believe he is gay. However, he is the closest thing to having a token gay in the class, hence Fruit of the Room. He cannot be gay, I am the only gay in the room. Actually, no I'm not. I mean, I'm not gay...I mean...yeah, but no...yeah, but no...no, but yeah. In a comment during class yesterday, he said, "wow...I really love that analogy of the staircase or the bicycle down a hill...which illustrates the electron transport chain as the electron 'falls' down that path releasing a little bit of energy along the way before being caught by the oxygen which acts as a bucket. As a teacher who speaks in analogies and loves making analogies all the time, I've got to remember that one...that was so cute."

Stephanie likes coming up with nicknames for everyone. There is DH, who depending on the day can be Designated Hitter or Domestic Help. Stephanie called her Domestic Help because a) she doesn't appear to speak much English and reminds her of many of her English Language Learner students' parents...and b) because help is precisely something she doesn't do when it comes time to contribute to labs and experiments. I prefer Designated Hitter because it is not nearly as mean. When you think DH, you think Designated Hitter, so I prefer to think of her as that, because she seems quite nice - just not all with it because of a major language barrier. Apparently, she is a teacher, too. Taking this class is one thing...but how she can teach in the Boston area with apparently very little knowledge of English is an enigma wrapped up in a "huh"?

There is Special Ed. His name really isn't Ed, but he is special. I've concluded that he is a person on the higher end of the Autistic Spectrum Disorders scale - likley Asperger's Syndrome. He seems bright enough to be a teacher, which I believe he is, and bright enough for the course, but the level of his social inadequacy and apparent pragmatic language disability is quite striking. The disconnect speaks volumes as he comes late to class most days and often says some inappropriate things or overreacts to simple misunderstandings. He accused my group of stealing his test tubes and insisted the writing on the tubes was his! A wind-up monkey we were playing with in class to demonstrate potential and kinetic energy went missing. Special Ed stood as the accused. He helps himself to snacks in the other room in the middle of a lecture and blurts out inappropriate things in an effort to be funny. In reference to a McMush solution (consisting of a blended Happy Meal) we used to test for the presence of proteins, lipids, starch, and sugar, he called out (very loudly) "Yeah, five bucks for anyone who drinks that...har har ha ha!" He also asked, in the middle of class, "I heard we are going to be doing cloning in here...is that true?" The professor, who is just as annoyed with him as the rest of us, somehow manages to keep a straight face and dish it right back to him. She responded with, "Yeah...we're actually going to clone you!" Special Ed, not recognizing the joke at his expense, then says, "Yeah that's actually a good idea. They should do that. We'd all be better off, you know!" Special Ed apparently rides his bike seventeen miles to class every day, which is quite good. However, he makes it a point to somehow remind us of this each day. Again, the professor plays along. "There are various foods that can give us more energy depending upon the number of kilocalories...and the more you exercise and exert energy the more energy you need to take in...so (Special Ed), that means you can eat more of the snacks provided in the room next door, because you reminded us about how far you ride each day." To this, Special Ed laughs and says, "Yeah, I can't wait for that fresh fruit to arrive!" His name starts with an "s" and ends with a "pecial Ed" or put another way, his name rhymes with Meshal Bed.

There is Miss Extra Punitive...the toothpick-thin girl who thinks she knows it all and must put others down in order to build herself up - and she is apparently helping to teach the next course. She isn't afraid to tell you how you are messing up an experiment, but at the same time, she sees the need to check your data and make sure her group's results are similar. Another one prone to random comments, she walked up to me the other day and said, "you're wearing a loud Hawaiian shirt. Guys can get away with that...girls can't. Though we can wear floral pattern dresses." Today, I wore another shirt like that and she saw fit to observe that. She was wearing a t-shirt. I very casually told her, "yeah - even when you dress down you make it look good." I admit that I find her vaguely attractive, but I'm not attracted to her.

There is Me Me Me and My Beach House. He is an older guy who seems to do nothing. Even DH has more to contribute than he does. He likes to talk and to hear himself talk, but he doesn't much care for taking part in any labs. "If you want, I can wash out that beaker", may be the most he will offer during a given class. The other day, he did absolutely nothing. He even disappeared from sight a few times.

There is also Guarding Mess. This is a younger girl who is just an M.Ed student at UMass, not a teacher like most of the rest of us. Guarding Mess, or GM, is pretty full of herself too, and to make sure you know it, she will talk talk talk. All the talk will be about is her of course, how she once got naked with other people and took photos of herself like that, how much she loves this, that, or the other thing, her precious "boyfriend", etc. She is a bit out there and seems to have befriended Special Ed. She also saw fit to decorate her name tag with pretty colors and floral designs. She is quite scatter-brained, and one must be on their guard when near her, hence Guarding Mess.

There is also Whirlybird or TTMSIDK (Thanks Tell Me Something I Didn't Know) Whirlybird thinks is another one who thinks she's the instructor. She is pretty much our version of John Madden. "Gee, it says you need to make a graph of this...I see you made a graph" or she'll say something like, "You will need a graduated cylinder to measure out the milk before adding the enzyme" after she clearly saw you do just that a minute earlier!

In addition to them, there are some cool people in class. There is Silky Smooth, the laid-back, very intelligent older gentleman who isn't afraid to ask the big questions. "Now what I don't get you see is how this A"T" P becomes the A "D" P. Seems to me, it don't make sense. See I don't know about that. Seems like it should be the other way around - you get what I'm sayin'?" He is the only one in the class who can make biology sexy. He makes it look good!!! He'd put Tim Meadows' Ladies Man character to shame.

I could go on, but that is enough for now. Or maybe there just isn't anyone else in class who is all that interesting.

Oh yeah, Stephanie is in my class of course, but she's "okay". She's really not all that interesting - at least not as much as the aforementioned cast of characters above. We ride the T into class everyday and talk about these people. All the other commuters give us blank, silent stares, as we are the only ones talking on the ride in. Stephanie has her own nicknames, of course. She is of course, "That Bitch", because for whatever reason, she finds it odd that everybody seems to hate her with a passion. Because her life is falling apart all around her, she has come up with a new name for herself PPTW. This acronym is more appropriate when used as a credential - as one of the professional suffixes at the end of her name. When she completes this program, she can print up business cards that say Stephanie G., M.S., M.Ed, PPTW. The PPTW stands for "personal and professional train wreck".

Oh well...better get to my homework tonight. Have to finish my lab write-up on cellular respiration and the observations noted given the reactions between yeast and milk. Yummy.

HELLO, ARLINGTON

By the end of August, that will be my new home. I've been told that my offer on the condo has been accepted! Arlington, Massachusetts is right next door to Somerville, but it's a very different place. Somerville is a city of about 77,000 people from many walks of life. There are university students, immigrants from all over the world, maybe a few professors, starving artists and musicians, panhandlers, street performers, meter maids, etc. The city of Somerville is one of the densest cities in the United States, as those same 77,000 people are squeezed into an area of only about 4.5 square miles. This is mainly accomplished through some midrises and highrises scattered throughout and also via the very tightly clustered rows of two and three family dwellings. Reportedly, the only denser city with respect to the population/area equation is New York! Though Somerville used to be known as the "Chicago of New England", because it used to have a thriving meat industry. Somerville was also once known as Slummerville because many neighborhoods were quite rundown, and a few still are. East Somerville is considered the townier section. West Somerville, near Tufts and Davis Square is much nicer. Somerville used to be part of Charlestown, which is essentially not so much a town in its own right as one of Boston Proper's neighborhoods. Somerville is bordered on the East by Charlestown, which is just across the river from the main peninsula of Boston. It is also bordered to the South by Cambridge and to the North by the Mystic River and the city of Medford. Tufts, incidently is actually in both Somerville and Medford. It is bordered to the West by the town of Arlington.

Arlington was once part of Cambridge or West Cambridge. It was also once known as Menotomy. No, not menotony - Menotomy. It's Indian and I don't know what it means. When it was renamed Arlington, it was named so in honor of the heroes buried in Arlington National Cemetary! Arlington has sections, too. East Arlington, near Spy Pond and the Capitol Theatre, is quite nice. Arlington Center is where all most of the life is. Arlington Heights is just slightly west of there and that's what you'll hit before running into Lexington. Arlington is bordered to the south by Belmont and to the east by Somerville and Cambridge. To the North, it is bordered by the Mystic River, Medford, and the town of Winchester. Arlington has a town manager and a town meeting form of government, unlike Somerville, where old boy, backroom politics still seems to rule the day there. Somerville is home to marshmallow fluff. Arlington is home to Uncle Sam and Moxie soda. Arlington is a little like Somerville, but far more grown up, urban with a quieter suburban feel, and a lot less dense - but still close and fairly convenient to everything.

QUOTABLE QUOTES

My favorite notes and quotes from various people I've encountered the last few months...some in the form of text messages, mind you.

"Oh my God, that bit you...you're going to die!" - Michael at Panera Bread

"You gonna wake up one day in the Holiday Inn girlfriend, and you gonna be sorry!" - Stephanie's para

"The fact that you find any redeeming value in the premise of the Gobots is very disturbing" - Greg, in a text message to Stephanie

"What happened...who's this I'm talking to again? What is he...the white Barack Obama?" - Irene, talking to Stephanie, referring to me.

"I believe the word that comes to mind is...yummy" - Greg, in a text to Stephanie

"That bitch...I hate that bitch!" - Stephanie, in reference to what others think about her

"I'm Chris Daughtry...from the band Daughtry" - Chris Daughty

"It's a real shit show...no...a shit spiral!" - Stephanie

"Excuse me, Neil?" - Irene or Stephanie

"What if she...what if she...forgets my name?" - Irene or Stephanie

"I totally slept bitch last night!" - Irene, after sleeping in a sitting-up position with a beer in her hand at Stephanie's house.

"Excuse me...what just happened? Can someone explain this to me?" - Irene or Stephanie, whenever something just doesn't seem to make sense.

"Gonna bake a pie...Gonna bake a pie...with a heart in the middle..." - song lyrics from the movie Waitress, as sung by Kerri Russell.

"Want to join the peddle party?" - Stephanie

"You're right...I am that bitch!" - Stephanie

"That's a good statue of that guy" - Stephanie, while walking through Fanuiel Hall.

"You don't respect baseball!" - a guy that Irene hung out with

"He was wearing a mandex!" Stephanie, in reference to a guy Irene met at the pub.

"She called Captain Cold Meds again" - Stephanie, referring to Irene and her ex.

"Usually, the puppies and I are up by about 8:00" - Michael

"The horse is a sphere...get it? Is a funny joke, no?" - Christos (Dr. Z) from physics class.

"Good times...I'm telling you...good times!" - Greg

"Yeah, I'm telling you...it IS hard out here for a pimp" - Greg

"Julian Tavarez is my hero" - Stephanie

"His resolution is to ruin five people's lives by the end of the year..." Stephanie, in reference to Greg's goals for the year.

"Vodka...connecting people" - t-shirt seen at a market kiosk in Quincy Market

"Samuel L. Jackson...it'll get you DRUNK!" from the Chappelle Show, which is the last thing we remember before falling asleep at Stephanie's house.

"She's a combination of random female body parts, Betsy Ross's body, and the reanimated head of President George Washington!" from the show, Little Bush.

"I can't finish it...because...because...I've run out of...I'm all out of drinking...ability" - Nicholas, inventing a reason why he couldn't finish his milk.

"Remember, what you put into the system is AT BEST, what you will get out" - Christos, during a lecture in physics class.

"If you like molecular biology and winning stuff, you'll love windorphins". - as seen in an ad on the T

"They too, yearn for immortality" - as seen on a poster in reference to two big, almost identical blocks, which are supposed to be art.

"If you could kill a person or a band, who would it be?" - question posed by Irene at McDonald's as we all struggled to recover from our hangover.

"See, I told you so" - the only five words Stephanie left in her voice message to a guy that tried to pick her up at the bar five minutes earlier. She didn't give her number out but got his and said she'd call him. The guy insisted he wouldn't call her.

"Welcome to the quadrilateral of pain..." - Stephanie in reference to physics class.

"Ice. Men. Sticks. Pucks" - seen on the shirt Stephanie's Dad wore on July 4th.

"We're all waiting for this great...om...unveiling!" - Greg, to Stephanie.

"Do you know what a triple beam balance is?" - Greg, in yet another attempt to insult Stephanie in physics class.

"I'm not so much of a wino as a why yes!" - Stephanie

"I live on the right side of the tracks" - Stephanie

"Ruth's Chris Steak House - they've got rats! Big nasty rats..." - Mike

"Oprah's Va-Jay Jay is Pain'in" name of one of the teams at pub trivia.

"Balsamic Jihad" - name of one of our team names at pub trivia

"Don't Hassle the Hoff" - name of another team at pub trivia

"I've got a workshop tomorrow with Judy 'The Wall'" - Stephanie, in reference to a woman she knows through work who is really quite large.

THE MINIUM CONDO HUNT

Holding out may have paid off. I was just about ready to give up on the condo hunt, or worse, settle for something far less than ideal - when bingo, my phone rings.

My agent called the other day, informing me of a new unit that had just come on, which happened to be in the same building as the unit I saw way back, when I had just begun my search. That being the first unit I saw, I didn't jump on it right away, as much as I loved it, because I wanted to see what else was out there. Needless to say, that didn't last long. By the time I turned around and thought about making an offer, it had already gone under agreement.

My first offer on any unit was made on a condo in a building just across the street. Though I wasn't crazy about the high asking price, with my agent's advice, I made a lowball offer and made a play for it. The sellers, who were actually executors of an estate, didn't reject the offer, but they did come back with a counter. Unfortunately, the counter did not come down much from their asking. I could have bandied about back and forth for weeks, but instead, I went straight to my final offer - my absolute limit (which for me would have been a financial stretch and could have made me in effect, "house poor"). This wasn't good enough for them either, and the difference in the end, was $5,000. On one hand it doesn't seem like that amount should have necessarily nixed the deal, but when you consider that this is either $5,000 more you might want to put down to lower the principal on the loan or $5,000 more you have to finance, it adds up and ends up becoming much more of an impasse than it may otherwise appear. You have to know your limit and when to walk away. I didn't like the place that much. Lesson #1, do not overpay for anything - no matter how much you like it. Chances are you'll find something better and probably even cheaper, too.

I was willing to hold out and I saw some other units, but nothing ideal. I could have settled, but I kept things close to the vest and decided to wait it out. It's quite possible that the summer could have gone by and I'd have nothing to show for it. If that was the case, so be it.

That brings me back to the latest news. I have since made an offer on this new unit that popped up. I saw it and there was a lot to like. Not only is it in the same building as the one I let get away, it's on the same floor and on the same side of the building. The layout is the same and everything.

If I had given up and simply settled on something else, this is the kind of thing I feared happening - that a unit such as this would then come on. I'm glad I waited it out.

I put in a full-price offer because even if I came in a bit lower, it wouldn't make a huge difference in my monthly payments. I want the unit enough that I'm willing to just go for it. There's no guarantee the seller will take the asking price, as they had scheduled an Open House for tomorrow, and they may hold any offers until they have a chance to hold the Open House. In other words, they reserve the right to hold out too, in hopes of driving up the price - which could in fact draw me into a bidding war. Again however, should that occur, I need to know where to draw the line and at what point I could walk away and say, "it's not worth it".

There's something a bit anti-climactic about having found a place. The hunt is a lot of fun. I'll miss going to the Open Houses and taking a look at places with my agent. Nothing is signed and sealed yet either, and there are plenty of intangibles (seller's motivations) and contingencies (inspections) that may well stop this deal in its tracks, but assuming all goes through, then I will have bought myself a condo.

With that done, then it would be on to the glorious task of shopping for mortgages. If all else is equal and everything goes according to plan, the inspection could take place in a week, and then the purchase and sale agreement could be signed and delivered by July 20. I go away the first part of August, but when I return I could be closing, giving me enough time to move and to settle in just before returning to work.

One promise I've made, however: to ditch most, if not all my current furniture and start over from scratch in my new home. Can you say, "Let's take a trip to IKEA?"

In 2008, Democrats will graduate Electoral College with honors

Karl Rove and his minions may have effectively stolen two elections, but their luck has just run out. Not only has George W. Bush dragged down the entire party so much so that even members of his own party are ready to bolt, but if you do some simple math (W might call it "fuzzy math"), it is inconceivable for the Democrats to lose in 2008, regardless of the nominee.

Clinton or Obama, Edwards or Biden...it really doesn't matter. Will Americans elect a black president? A woman? Again, it doesn't matter. As long as we still have to go to the Electoral College, the odds favor just about any Democrat, save Dennis Kucinich.

If the GOP were to sweep the South, including our friends down in Florida, it wouldn't be enough, so long as Hillary, Barack, or any of the prospective Democratic nominees could hang on and win Ohio. Even if they lost Pennsylvania, the Dems would win by a margin of 272-261 in the Electoral College. The Republicans would have to pull off wins in both Ohio and Pennsylvania to have a chance. Winning one of the two is not impossible, but sweeping both of those states, considering the huge numbers that could turn out for Democrats in places like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia, it is unlikely. The Dems could lose Ohio, but hold on to Pennsylvania and still manage a 273-260 win. Even better, if the GOP did somehow win both Ohio and Pennsylvania, they could still lose if the Democrats were successful in stealing Missouri, Indiana or Tennessee and another smaller state, worth no fewer than seven Electoral Votes. If they grab any two of those three first states, the game is over, irrespective of OH and PA. In fact, if the Democrats were to lose those two big prizes and fail to win the Missouris or Indianas to make up for it, the election still goes to the Democrat if they simply take Florida. That's right. The Democrats could lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Tennessee and a smaller state and still comfortably win the election by snagging Florida (279-254). Essentially then, the GOP has to win Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida to have a fighting chance in 2008. Anything short of that, and they are as good as toast. If the Democrats win just one of those three, they are home free.

The Republicans will still enjoy huge advantages in the South, but if the Democrats make even the most modest inroads and pick off one or two states down there, the GOP will not only stand to lose this election, but it could portend a serious shift in Electoral politics over the next generation. The GOP's task is getting harder because Red States are turning Purple and Blue States are getting bluer. New Hampshire is now solidly Blue. New Mexico is trending more Democratic lately. Colorado is getting bluer by the minute. Florida is too close to call and even states like Virginia and North Carolina can't be counted as sure things for the GOP anymore. What is more, the GOP has no chance at picking off Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, or Minnesota. Iowa and Wisconsin should be pretty reliably in Democratic control, especially after this disastrous presidency. All of New England will vote for the Democrat, bar none. Even Republican Governor Jodi Rell of Connecticut can't stop her state's Democratic presidential bias.

When you do the math, assuming widespread voter fraud and/or vote tampering is prevented through much closer scrutiny, and given the current Electoral College distribution according to traditional party strengths, the odds strongly favor the Democrats. If you have a female (Hillary) or a black candidate (Obama), that only increases the likelihood that you will turn out the vote in those large metropolitan centers in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast.

As a point of interest, if you throw a guy like Michael Bloomberg in the race, more than likely, he would not have a chance at breaking into the Electoral College. However, he could impact the overall vote in key states. This is what could potentially give the GOP that slimmest of chances to sweep the critical Big Three (FL, OH, and PA). Bloomberg, if he were to win any Electoral Votes, it would most likey be from New York. If he fractures the vote enough there and pulls in enough from vote-rich New York City, he could effectively reel in those 31 Electoral Votes. If he did that, all bets are off and this goes into the House.

If that happened, Bloomberg could not win, because the House would have to decide among the top two highest Electoral Vote-getters.

This would be why re-electing a Democratic House would be vitally important - other than helping to serve the interests of the new Democratic president. However, if an election goes to the House, it's not one vote for each new House member...it's one vote per state. That means that it's not enough to simply have more Democrats. You need to have Democrats with a controlling interest among, at the very least, 26 state delegations in the House. You could, in theory, have a 224-214 Democratic Majority in the House, but if most of those ten additional Democrats are found in states like New York or California, the GOP could still end up controlling a majority of the state delegations. The Democrats could have the overall majority in House membership, yet have controlling interest of only 24 state delegations. If that happened, that would be bad, as it could give the GOP presidential nominee a slim 26-24 House victory.

Chances are we don't have to worry. I don't think Bloomberg will run. He will only run, I believe, if he thinks he can win. If it is clearly explained to him that he can't win as an Independent, no matter how many billions he can spend, it may be enough to make him reconsider. He is an opportunist. This is the Democrat who became a Republican, only because he knew it would help his chances to get a major party nomination for the general election ballot in New York. If Bloomberg does run, it won't be as an Independent. He'd run as a Democrat, because he'd stick to his core beliefs and he knows how unpopular the GOP is now.

Might be interesting. We've all heard about the all-New York battle - Hillary vs. Rudy? What about Bloomberg v. Giuliani? The last two New York City mayors going at it for the White House? Now that would be classic. Can you imagine that? Exactly. Neither can I.

You heard it here first. The Democrats will win in 2008. Even Michael Moore, in an interview, when asked what he would think if the Republicans won again in 2008, replied, "Now you just said something that is physically impossible - the Republicans winning in 2008!"

Unless Gore gets into this thing, which I doubt, Hillary R. Clinton will be our new president come January 20, 2009. I'll explain why in a later post.

Hillary or Obama?

"Consider Obama" - those were the words written in bold letters on a sign at Mack's Apples, just around the corner from my sister's house in New Hampshire. Mr. Mack, as of late, has been notorious for his signs. Some of his signs regarding gay marriage, the war in Iraq, and other issues have been quite provocative. The former Republican turned fervent Democrat appears to represent a growing trend in New Hampshire. What was once a red state has now become solidly blue and seems to be more closely emulating its more liberal neighbor to the South, Massachusetts. It's safe to say that all of New England is likely the bluest of the blue regions in the country.


So should we consider Obama? I have a few reservations about him. First of all, he is the flavor of the month. He is all about the hype and I don't like hype. Why get on the bandwagon for the sake of getting on the bandwagon? Secondly, politically, he is still very green. Now is not the time for someone without experience. We tried that before, didn't we...? His name was W. Though arguably, Obama would at least have his heart in the right place. Here in Massachusetts, we've seen some of the consequences of electing a newbie to a lofty position.

Governor Deval Patrick swept the Commonwealth by storm - he would be the first black governor of Massachusetts and he was young and energetic and he had lots of great ideas...and best of all, he wasn't Mitt Romney or Kerry Healey. After he took office, Deval made several missteps. Not the least among these was ordering the most expensive car as his official transportation, buying high-end drapes for his office (all with state money) and making courtesy phone calls to state agencies on behalf of a company in which he held stock. Also, some of those promises he made? He backpedaled, citing that there was less in the budget than he thought. Yet he saw enough money in the budget to buy those high-end luxury items. It was so bad that Patrick had to make a public apology and plead for the state's forgiveness - asking that they bear with him and give him a chance. Since then, he's recovered, but you can bet people will be watch him much more closely now.

Finally, Obama's record isn't squeaky clean either and there is plenty of dirt his opposition can scare up which could be very effective in derailing his campaign. Obama may in fact, have an electability problem.


If the past is any guide, Hillary will win the nomination. Just ask 2004 Democratic nominee Howard Dean or 2000 Democratic nominee Bill Bradley. Dean and Bradley shared a common thread - they were supposed to be the great alternative - the anti-Establishment candidates who would take the party and the country by storm. Instead, Dean is the Chairman of the Democratic Party and Bradley, well...he's still just writing books. You see the same thing happen on the Republican side. John McCain, in 2000, back when he still commanded any shroud of respect from both sides of the aisle, was seen as the anti-Bush. He was going to take back the Republican Party and crush Dubya, the Chosen One. Well, we all know how that turned out, unfortunately.

The point is, no matter how much money you raise and how big a darling you are in the eyes of the media, you won't win the nomination if you aren't the favorite of the party establishment. Obama's stock will continue to rise and Hillary's campaign will be left for dead and then all of a sudden, the media will turn on Obama, in much the same way they did Dean, and this will help Hillary cruise all the way to the nomination we all knew she was going to get anyway. Remember when John Kerry was considered a goner? There was no way he'd stop Dean's momentum! Er, yeah...right. The media brought Kerry back from the dead after repeatedly and unapologetically playing Dean's charismatic rally over and over again and making him out to be some chronic screamer. Gary Hart was supposed to steal former Vice President and presumptive nominee Walter Mondale's thunder, but then came those photos (though admittedly, Gary Hart was just plain stupid, too). Many a Republican hoped to rob poor Bob Dole of his claim on a major presidential candidacy in 1996, but despite his fumbling and bumbling, it was Dole who got to face off in the dubious role as sacrificial lamb to Bill Clinton, not any of the young GOP upstarts running that year. You would need to go way back to 1976 to when Jimmy Carter first ran, before you could find an example of a case where a presumptive party favorite failed to claim the nomination. Who knew a modest farmer from Georgia would take the world by storm? Back then, it can be argued, times were different and the major political parties did in fact have a little bit of wiggle room for the new guy.

John McCain will still likely win the Republican nomination. Don't let Rudy's rise and McCain's current problems fool you. Don't believe for a minute that the Establishment takes Romney seriously. He's reinvented himself so many times, the GOP can't take their chances on him.

At the end of the day, this will be Hillary's nomination to lose. The most compelling reason not to support Obama is because he won't be the nominee. Why waste our time? Hillary offers some distinct advantages.

First, Hillary has far more experience than Obama. She's been in the Senate slightly longer, but don't forget that she was in the White House for eight years already. She played much more of a role in both domestic and foreign affairs than some may even realize.


Hillary's claim to both the Northeast and the Midwest will help her. If she selects a strong Southern male (not John Edwards) as her running-mate, she can effectively triangulate the Electoral map. Remember, John Kerry almost won the 2004 Election. If he had only picked up Ohio, he would have been our president. It's no coincidence that Hillary is more popular among blacks than Obama. That has largely to do of course with the fact that Bill was often regarded as "America's First Black President". Ironically, I believe she would be far more effective in getting blacks out to vote than Obama. Women, especially younger women, would gravitate towards her as well.

Hillary also has much of the cultural and liberal political establishment behind her. Hollywood (Steven Spielberg), corporate America (Warren Buffett and others), Silicon Valley (the people at Google, for example) and Democratic big whigs (including her own husband Bill of course - and believe me - he's still got "it"), and the progressive arm of the media are all mobilized in the concerted effort to give Hillary the win. They are all invested and they are not in this to lose either. They all have a lot riding on her nomination and ultimately, her election. Sure, some of them will dance with Obama, but at the end of the day, they really only ever had eyes for Hillary.

That said...is Hillary electable. I'll get to that in another post.

Bet You Didn't Know (about Boston)

Samuel Adams is not the one pictured on the bottle of Samuel Adams. It is Paul Revere. Apparently, the founder of the Samuel Adams Brewing Co. decided that Mr. Adams was too ugly to have his mug pictured on the label. They instead chose Paul Revere, whom they uh, revered because he was quite the looker as compared to Sammy. How come I never see a picture of Stella when I drink Artois?

Paul Revere's family name was not originally Revere. It was originally Revoire (sp?). Also, Paul Revere never said, "one if by land, two if by sea". He said, "one if by land, and two if by Charles", in reference to the Charles River. This is because the British weren't coming...they were all here, living among Bostonians already. They wouldn't have to come by sea, they only had to come across the river or, if a bunch of them were already across the way in Charlestown, then they'd be traveling by land. Of course that was all before the Big Dig, so traveling via that old central artery must have been murder.

In old Colonial days, the Boston Common was where you would be hanged for certain crimes. It was also used as a place for the militia to practice their drills and to graze cattle. It is the oldest public park in the United States. The Boston Public Gardens are adjacent to the Common. The TD Banknorth Garden however, is where many fans would love to hang their crap basketball and hockey teams.

Mother Goose, Paul Revere, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin's father are all buried in the Old Granary Burying Grounds. My question is: why isn't the Granary buried there?

Crispus Attucks was the one black man who was killed in the Boston Massacre. He is also buried in the Old Granary Burying Grounds. Coco Crisp though, is not the only black man on the Red Sox, but he helps to massacre any Boston rallies by striking out in the clutch.

Boston used to be known as Tremontaine, named after the three hills it encompassed. One of those hills really doesn't exist anymore. This is where we got Tremont Street. It was also once known as Shawmut. When it was named Boston, it was named after the same town in England many of the settlers were from. It's a good thing the settlers didn't come from Lake Titicaca.

The famous painting of the Boston Massacre is one of the first bits of good propaganda used in the Americas. The Boston Massacre started because a number of colonists thought it would be funny to annoy many of the British soldiers holding down various posts downtown. They would taunt them, throw rocks at them, etc. This escalated quickly and the Brits were getting a bit cross, but they tried to exercise restraint. Ultimately, due to some miscommunication or something mistaken as a gunshot, the Brits decided to open fire upon the pesky colonists. In the grand scheme of things, not many were killed. Also, believe it or not, there were colonists who served as the Brits' defense attorneys in the court proceedings that followed the incident. It was in their best interest to clear them of any wrongdoing. However, other colonists saw an opportunity to turn things around to their advantage. The famous painting clearly makes it look like a bunch of brutish Brits fired upon an innocent group of men, women, and children without cause. This was of course distributed to the masses and this helped create the rallying cry that would lead to the Revolution. Even before radio and TV, propaganda were being put to good effect long ago. Would have put poor Karl Rove to shame.

Queen Elizabeth II came to visit many years ago and she gave her speech from the balcony of the Old State House. There, she asked Bostonians if they would like to be her subjects again. They politely declined the offer. However, the City of Boston paid the Queen some $30,000 or so, which happened to be the value of the tea dumped in Boston Harbor back before the Revolution. While the amount was not quite on par with today's dollar value, the Queen accepted the recompense. According to some sources, the Queen used that money to purchase stock in Twinings.

The Old State House still bears the symbols of the old British monarchy; the lion and the unicorn. The Old State House, many years ago, was actually considered for demolition. However, the City of Chicago stepped in and said, "if you are going to tear down that wonderful piece of history, then we will take it apart brick by brick and reassemble it here in Chicago". Not thrilled with the prospect of letting Chicago have the building, plans to tear down the Old State House were halted. Unfortunately, plans to tear down the monstrosity that is Boston City Hall have not been given serious thought.

Parker House rolls and Boston Creme Pie found their origin at the Parker House Hotel, which is also, according to legend, believed to be haunted. Many a famous guest has slept at the Parker House. They also apparently knew upon which side their bread was buttered.

King's Chapel does not have a steeple or cupola because when they were building it, they ran out of money. Since then, they decided not to build one.

The City of Portland, Oregon was named after Portland, Maine. The two guys who went out there and established the city hailed from Portland, Maine and Boston, Massachusetts, respectively. They both wanted to name it after their own hometown. They settled the matter through a bet or a coin toss, and as we now know, the guy from Portland evidently won. How odd that would have been. "I'm going to Boston"..."But you're in Boston..." "Not this Boston, the other Boston..." "Boston, Mass, or Boston, Oregon?" "You came here for an argument!" "No I didn't..." "Yes you did..."

John Hancock helped fund the Revolution on the promise that he would be made the new nation's first president. Bottom line, someone lied. But thanks for the money, John.

Mayor Josiah Quincy established Quincy Market as the central marketplace where Boston could get their fresh cuts of meat, fish, and vegetables. It was also convenient for the sea trade, as a place where traders could buy and sell consumables.

Peter Fanuiel conceived of Fanuiel Hall, which still today is used for a variety of functions, meetings, etc. Presidential speeches were given there, television debates, etc. Also, the hall is open to the public and anyone can reserve it for a nominal fee or none at all. However, the waiting list is evidently very long. Fanuiel is not supposed to be pronounced Fan-you-el. It is actually fan-el. Fennel? Funnel? Manual? Manuel? Manny Ramirez?

Northeastern University was built atop the old Huntington Avenue Grounds, the former home of the Boston Red Sox. In fact, I had my physics class this past semester in a building that overlooked the old pitcher's mound and home plate. The old home plate is still marked with a plate and the mound is represented by a statue of Cy Young. It's a good statue of that guy.

Trying to find the Kendall Square Cinema is in a word, difficult. If you are under the false impression that disembarking from the Kendall/MIT T stop will in fact put you within a stone's throw of the Kendall Square Cinema, then you need to be disabused of that notion. This task, I have found, is all the more difficult when bracing yourself against a veritable hurricane, or at least conditions that are consistent with hurricane-type rain and winds.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City is originally from Medford, Massachusetts, which is literally a stone's throw from where I'm currently living. Word is he might run for president as an independent - but in Mayor Mike's own words, his concern is, "will anybody vote for a five-foot, seven inch Jew?" I'd vote for a 5'7" Jew if it meant stopping Giuliani.

Barack Obama lived in Somerville, Massachusetts (actually on the same street I live on now) and while here attending Harvard Law School, he actually accumulated far more parking tickets than I have. Mr. Obama just recently paid off the more than $300 in parking tickets. Fortunately for him, he has raised over $32 Million this past quarter, so that should offset those fines.

I have a friend, whose brother lives in Cambridge. John Malkovich is his neighbor. Malkovich...Malkovich Malkovich!!!

Nothing tastes better than a quarter-pounder with cheese at the McDonald's walk-up window near Fanueil Hall at 12:30 in the morning, after a night of drinking at the Kinsale and Jose McIntyre's.

Trying to get to King's (the bowling alley, restaurant and bar) in Back Bay is much easier if you take the Green Line to Prudential, not Boylston. It is also far easier if you don't have to walk half an hour in 100% humidity.

Best T-shirt in Boston..."Vodka - connecting people".

I have a friend, who shall remain anonymous, who peed on John Kerry's lawn. What should he care...he doesn't mow it!

A Truthful Inconvenience

The following is an excerpt from Al Gore's New York Times bestselling book, "The Assault on Reason". This pretty much sums everything up about the current Administration and the slippery slope our nation is sliding down:

When the decision-making process is no longer dominated by reason, it quickly becomes far more vulnerable to outcomes determined by the use of raw power, and the temptation to corruption grows accordingly. And sure enough, in recent years there has been a series of gross examples of corruption and the fraudulent abuse of public power for private ends. The activities that now do the most harm to the health and integrity of American democracy are for the most part legal. And all of the abuses have on thing in common: The perpetrators have clearly assumed that they have little to fear from public outrage and that very few people will learn about their misdeeds.

All of them assume an ignorant public. Bush would not be able credibly to label a bill that increases air pollution "the clear skies initiative" - or call a bill that increases clear-cutting of national forests "the healthy forests initiative" - unless he was confident that the public was never going to know what these bills actually did.

Nor could he appoint Ken Lay from Enron to play such a prominent role in handpicking members to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Lay's choices were conveyed directly to the White House personnel officer, and there is every indication that Lay participated in interviewing prospects) unless the president felt totally comfortable that no one would pay attention to an obscure policy apparatus like the FERC. After members of the FERC were appointed with Mr. Lay's personal review and approval, Enron went on to bilk the electric ratepayers of California and other states without the inconvenience of federal regulators trying to protect citizens from the company's criminal behavior.

Likewise, that explains why many of the most important Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) positions have been carefully filled with lawyers and lobbyists representing the worst polluters in their respective industries, ensuring that those polluters are not inconvenienced by the actual enforcement of the laws against excessive pollution.

The private foxes have been placed in charge of the public henhouses. And shockingly, the same pattern has been followed in many other agencies and departments. But there is precious little outrage because there is so little two-way conversation left in our democracy.

Trees are falling right and left, but they don't seem to be making a sound. This behavior could never take place if there were the slightest chance that such institutionalized corruption would be exposed in a public forum that had relevance to the outcome of elections.

Thomas Jefferson warned that the concentration of power in the executive branch would lead to corruption unless there was full and vigorous scrutiny of its appointments by the public. Appointed positions in the federal government would, in effect, be auctioned off to the business interests most affected by the decisions made by those appointed. "Withdrawn from the eyes of the people", he wrote, "they (federal offices) may more secretly be bought and sold, as at market".

In Bush's ideology, there is an interweaving of the agendas of large corporations that support him and his own ostensibly public agenda for the government that he leads. Their preferences become his policies, and his policies become their business. The White House is evidently so beholden to the coalition of interests that has supported it financially that it feels it has to give them whatever they want and do whatever they say. While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors and powerful political supporters, he is morally timid - so much so that he seldom if ever says "no" to them on anything - no matter what the public interest might mandate.

----

Just as the appointment of industry lobbyists to key positions in agencies that oversee their former employers results in a kind of institutionalized corruption and the abandonment of law enforcement and regulations at home, the outrageous decision to brazenly grant sole-source no-bid contracts worth $10 billion to Vice President Cheney's former company Halliburton - which paid him $150,000 annually until 2005 - has convinced many observers that incompetence, cronyism, and corruption have played a significant role in undermining U.S. policy in Iraq.

Not coincidentally, the first audits of the massive sums flowing through the U.S. authorities in Iraq now show that billions of dollars in money appropriated by Congress and Iraqi oil revenue have disappeared with absolutely no record of where they went, to whom, for what, or when. And charges of massive corruption are now widespread.

The president has rejected recommendations of antiterrorism experts to increase domestic security because large contributors in the chemical industry, the hazardous materials industry, and the nuclear industry oppose these measures. Even though his own Coast Guard recommends increased port security, he has chosen instead to reject the recommendation, relying on information provided to him by the commercial interests managing the ports, who don't want the expense and inconvenience of implementing new security measures.

---

...television is a one-way medium. Individuals receive but do not send, they listen but do not speak, they are given information but do not share it in return, they do not comment on it in ways that others can hear. Therefore, automatically, their ability to use the tools of reason as participants in the national conversation is suspended.

---

Thus, one of the most obvious and dangerous consolidations of power has formed in the media, where powerful conglomerates have used their wealth to gain more power and consequently more wealth. Physical and economic constraints on access to television in particular made this outcome largely inevitable. It's hard to understate how much media ownership has changed in the space of a generation. Today, it's rare to see a family-run media business with deep pride in its independence and a journalistic tradition that has survived over half a dozen generations. Such businesses are now part of conglomerates whose obligations involve meeting Wall Street's expectations rather than the Founder's expectations of the requisite for a well-informed citizenry.

Now that the conglomerates can dominate the expressions of opinion that flood the minds of the citizenry and selectively choose the ideas that are amplified so loudly as to drown out others that, whatever their validity, do not have wealthy patrons, the result is a de facto coup d 'etat overthrowing the rule of reason. Greed and wealth now allocate power in our society, and that power is used in turn to further increase and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the few.

- from the chapter, "The Politics of Wealth" in The Assault on Reason by Arnold Albert Gore, Jr.

Do We Need a President? (National Election Reform Part I)

"Besides, we still have two out of three branches of our government functioning, and two out of three ain't bad" - Jack Nicholson as the President in the film, "Mars Attacks!"


In reference to the article I posted below (see "No Vice"), I can't help but agree with the author's premise. However, I would take that one step further and ask, "Do we need a president?"


I'm reading Al Gore's new book, "The Assault on Reason", and in that, he explains how President Bush's tenure has been marked by one big power grab after another. In effect, this administration has far overstepped the bounds of the Executive Branch as outlined in the Constitution, to the point where the three branches of government, which are supposed to serve adequately as checks on one another in what is supposed to be a free democracy, are rendered obsolete. By appointing wealthy friends in high places and then allowing them to turn the wheels of power in an effort to set national policies and squelch the rights of the individual, the Constitution as we know it has been reduced to a piece of paper that may have been taken out with the recycling a few years ago.


This president, not the Congress, took us to war with a country that did not attack us. This president has not only single-handedly destroyed this nation as we know it, but has made a mess of the world around us and squandered the good will many nations felt towards us. This was the work of one man - one president. It was also the work of Dick Cheney, but Cheney is the president, too. Neither is a vice president, but they both have many vices.


Think, if there were no president, no vice president, or Executive Branch, we would have had no war against Iraq. We would not have lost the good will of other nations. We would have military generals in the field continuing to focus their efforts and energies on Afghanistan, not Iraq. We may have even avoided 9/11. Had the CIA and FBI, and information from other intelligence sources not been dismissed by the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Rice, these sources and agencies just may have had the flexibility and freedom to share information with one another, without fear of political repercussions, losing their job, or having their patriotism challenged.


If there were no president, a five trillion dollar budget surplus may not have been turned into an over four trillion dollar deficit due to some of the most ridiculous tax breaks ever put forth by an administration and the trillions wasted on this sad war.


If there were no president, education in this country may have a fighting chance. Because we have a president, we are instead burdened with the seriously flawed "No Child Left Behind" act.


If there were no president, real threats from Iran and North Korea may not have been ignored. Because the real dangers were overlooked, these states have been allowed to pursue the very weapons of mass destruction this president carried on about for so long with respect to Iraq.


Can the United States function without an Executive Branch? Yes. That does not mean that it can function without some sort of chief administrator. The problem with the Executive is that it has become less an administrative branch and more of a legislative one. Alas, this may have served to confuse Dick Cheney with regard to what his role is and under what auspices his position falls. This administration makes policy, whether Congress authorizes it to do so or not. This administration determines what is legal and illegal, irrespective of the Supreme Court. This administration has even gone so far as to tell Congress that it will sign certain bills, but that it reserves the right not to follow the new law.


All this has set a bad precedent for the next president, Democratic or otherwise. With presidential politics the way it is, it is hard to fathom too many candidates, even those on the Left, who will not become giddily obsessed with their newfound raw power. Indeed, to undo much of the damage this president has done, it will take lots of unchecked presidential power, with the pendulum swinging wildly in the opposite direction to accomplish this feat. While in essence we would be erasing many years of pain and destruction, it would only serve to weaken our Constitution and our democracy that much further. Then, should we be unfortunate enough to end up with another Far Right wing-nut in the Oval Office in the future, what then should stop them from kicking it up yet another notch? Would it be long before the Congress is dissolved by the president? What's to prevent the president from doing that now? The Constitution certainly is no obstacle. Before you know it, the American autocracy would take hold and then all is truly lost.


Bush, Cheney, and the Far Right have wrecked this nation. However, the corrupting power and influence of presidential politics and the media have been in cahoots to rob our democracy of its true character. Yes, we need a leader, but not a president.


Though I would not recommend the same type of parliamentary system such as that found in the United Kingdom, something akin to that might be ideal.


In order to preserve the best aspects of what our democracy was meant to be, we may actually be forced to rob it of certain democratic systems that we have enjoyed. Ironically, in order to achieve greater accountability from our leaders, we may have to give up our right to vote for president.


How can I suggest such a thing when it clearly flies in the face of any efforts to preserve the foundations upon which our republic was formed? To answer this question, we must more closely analyze our presidential elections. Exactly how much control do we get in electing our president? Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's veritable appointment of George Bush to the presidency, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the individual voter truly has no say in who becomes president at all.


Election cycles are beginning much earlier. Before the voting machines are put away, the concession speeches are given, and the inaugural balls are held, candidates gear up for the next election. Of course, they do not admit that they are candidates at such an early juncture, but candidates they are nonetheless. As soon as the first fundraising dollar is earned, exploratory committees formed, and papers filed, consider them a candidate. There is no reason for journalists to pussy-foot the issue and press politicians on the issue when they have the evidence they need. It makes no sense for journalists to ask, "Are you or are you not a candidate?" or "When will you announce...can you announce right here on our program?" if it is already public information that the political figure has filed federal election papers or has started an exploratory committee. Likewise, said figures should not be coy about matters. If you're running, you are running. End of story.


These candidates, to even have a chance, have to raise at least tens of millions of dollars before the first primary ballot is even cast. The media jump in and then try to influence the vote with their talking heads "experts", their colorful electoral charts and polls, and special news or biographical features on the candidates. When it comes time for the caucuses and primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire get the lionshare of attention and failure in one or both of those states is tantamount to political death.


Sure some Iowans and residents of New Hampshire get to vote or voice their opinions, but they have undue influence. If California, the most populous state, really likes Hillary, but New Hampshire is sweet on Barack OBama, then New Hampshire is going to have a lot more influence in possibly making Obama the next nominee than California will, even though California has many more voters. If winning New Hampshire has effectively secured the nomination for someone like Obama, then California (and many other states) will have no incentive to vote if a winner is already decided.

Momentum is the key. If you can generate the momentum needed in the early primary states, you can effectively run away with the nod. Of course, the media like to play kingmaker and spoiler. One need look no further than the 2004 primary race, where we saw the media, in one fell swoop, cause Howard Dean's campaign to implode and catapult Establishment candidate John Kerry back into serious contention - overplaying the so-called "Dean Scream" helped Kerry restore the Establishment's claim to the nomination, which would have otherwise been unduly robbed by the Vermont upstart. For people like me, who genuinely rallied behind Dean, we were and still are quite outraged by this act of political sabotage. Of course, we all came to support Kerry, but what choice did we have then?

Not only are our choices influenced by the enormous amounts of money raised, front-loaded and overmagnified early primary contests, and media bias, but also we have no choice in who runs and who does not. If only we could have had a say in whether George W. Bush should have been allowed to run in 2000. What about those of us who would like to see Al Gore run this time around? If he does not run, then we are forced to make a tough decision among candidates we may view as being less than ideal. Why can't there be an election where we the people decide who gets to run and who doesn't? Of course, logistically and democratically, we cannot in good conscience dictate who gets to run and who does not. However, this just underscores just how little say we have in the entire process.

Once the dust from the primaries has settled, there emerge two major candidates, the nominees of their respective parties. This is the choice we are left with. That's it. We get to choose one of those two people, unless we want to vote for a third-party candidate. If we dislike both major candidates, we have to vote for the lesser of two evils or vote for someone we know can't win, for the principle of it.

After enduring months on end of political campaigning and gamesmanship, media hype and sensationalism, watching hundreds of millions of dollars be spent by candidates and special interest gruops on vilifying attack ads, and being provided with less and less choice or actual say in the whole process, we go to the polls and choose the one person we feel will do the least amount of harm to our country.

Or at least we think we choose.

Funny that there is still this thing called the Electoral College that gets in the way of direct election of the president. We do not actually vote for the president. We are in fact, voting for an Elector, whom we assume will in good faith cast their ballot in favor of the candidate we have instructed them to vote for when it comes time for the Electoral College to meet. The politics surrounding who gets to be an Elector is a whole different story. Unfortunately, an Elector is not bound by our instructions. Any Elector can decide to cast his or her ballot for anyone else. If that occurs, that can sway an election, if it is that close. Suppose a candidate wins an election by a margin of 270-268. It only takes one faithless Elector to sway the outcome. If the candidate with 270 votes gains one less Electoral Vote because that one Elector decided to give it to the other guy or to someone entirely different, then nobody has a majority. This would then throw the election into the House and the new House of Representatives would choose the next president. If the Democrat won the election in November, and that Elector's actions robbed him or her of that victory, a newly elected Republican House could effectively render the people's decision meaningless and give the presidency to the losing candidate. Don't believe it? It's been done before...only that time it was the Supreme Court that perpetrated that crime against democracy. The Electoral margin in 2000 was indeed very close, and had neither candidate, when all was said and done, not attained the 270 Electoral Votes needed for a majority, the Republican House, rest assured, would have installed Bush as the next president nonetheless. Again, we did not have a say after the Supreme Court ruled and we would have been equally voiceless had the Congress made the decision for us.

To return to my earlier point then, our say in the whole process of electing the president is a farce no matter how you slice it. Even if you were to abolish the Electoral College, there would be much more widespread election fraud and abuse, and any challenges could potentially trigger nationwide recounts and court battles for months on end - think Florida in 2000 only multiplied by 50 states and many more months.

Direct election of the president could also actually result in the election of a minority president. If the Republican candidate defeats the Democratic candidate by a percentage of 48-46% and a progressive third-party candidate receives 6% of the vote, then in effect, a majority of voters would have voted against the Republican candidate by a 52-48 percent margin. Though most people did not vote for the Republican, that's who we would get. Also, if there were a direct election of the president, you could end up with a regional president. Suppose one candidate hails from the South. If his or her party mobilizes enough of their base in the South and gets a very good turnout in the polls down there, then very little time or effort would need to be spent in the rest of the country. A few million votes concentrated in the South could be all that candidate needs to secure victory. Similarly, this would encourage all candidates to go to the most populous areas and spend most of their time and resources there. New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, and Detroit would command the lionshare of focus since that is where a lot of the votes are. Why would anyone bother with any rural states or suburban areas of the country where the vote concentration is not as great? The one good thing about the Electoral College is that it gives small states a say in the process and ignoring small states or less populous regions could cost you the presidency. In a direct election, you could write off a two-thirds of the voters and still have a great shot at winning - by a lot!

Is there a way to fix this? There is...stay tuned.

"No Vice"

Very good article in the Sunday Globe about why we don't need a vice president - we don't need one in the executive OR legislative branch.


WE ARE ALREADY in the midst of a vigorous campaign to select the next president of the United States. But, of course, in November 2008 we will be selecting both a president and a vice president.

It's obvious enough why we need a president, unless we repudiate our Constitution and decide to emulate parliamentary systems that place power in the hands of prime ministers, selected by legislative majority, who do not serve for fixed terms. Not for us is a system like Great Britain's, which last week saw the unexceptional handover of power from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown without so much as a vote being cast by any member of the public.

But why do we need a vice president? The vice president has no particular duties under the Constitution other than to ask after the president's health each morning and to preside over the Senate (and cast the tie-breaking vote if the Senate is evenly split). And yet the vice president -- if he proves himself a liability, or unfit to stand a heartbeat away from the Oval Office -- cannot be dismissed by the president he serves, or be removed by Congress except by impeachment. So how exactly do Americans benefit from this constitutionally ordained office?
These questions, which might seem unduly academic under normal circumstances, have taken on special meaning as a substantial majority of Americans express concern about Vice President Dick Cheney's fitness for his office. Numerous articles, most recently in The Washington Post, and earlier in The Boston Globe and elsewhere, have demonstrated Cheney's unprecedented influence over a variety of policy areas during the past six years, including the decision to go to war in Iraq and, perhaps as important, the authorization of what can only be described as torture in the interrogation of terrorism suspects, or "illegal enemy combatants."

Most Americans believe, justifiably, that Cheney has consistently displayed appallingly bad judgment. On top of this, there is his contempt for democratic accountability and oversight by other institutions of government. Most recently, he defied a presidential order requiring monitoring of classified information, claiming that he is exempt because, as Senate president, he is a member of the legislative branch. (Of course, he also defies congressional oversight by claiming certain "executive privileges.")

To remove Cheney from office, one would have to impeach him -- and there is indeed a small but growing movement among both liberals and conservatives to do just that. And yet, for better or worse, it is difficult to argue that Cheney himself has done anything in his capacity as vice president that rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," as required by the Constitution for impeachment. His only official job, presiding over the Senate, offers few opportunities for scoffing at the law. (And even if his claimed exemption from a presidential order is thought to be illegal, it is a stretch to view that as an impeachable offense, and it would, of course, take at least until the end of his term to get a judicial decision on the claim.)
Exercise of spectacularly bad judgment, alas, is not a criminal offense. If, as in parliamentary systems, Congress could remove Cheney through a vote of "no confidence," he might indeed have reason to fear for his continued employment, but the Constitution provides him job security against such a possibility.

The problem, then, is not only Dick Cheney but the US Constitution. Consider that in a 21st-century world that contains literally dozens of constitutional republics, few with constitutions written after World War II have seen fit to include a constitutionally entrenched vice president. (Most have chosen parliamentary systems, fearing autocratic presidents.) France, which just completed a dramatic presidential election, has no vice president at all. South Africa, when drafting its widely admired 1994 constitution, did provide for a "deputy president," but he serves at the pleasure of the president, which means, by definition, that he has nothing resembling the job security of Dick Cheney.

There is, as a practical matter, almost nothing we can do to affect Cheney's tenure as vice president and, perhaps, president. But considering his lamentable record over the past six years, and looking back as well at the history of the vice presidency, the question to ask on this Fourth of July is whether we should continue blithely to embrace the possibility of future Cheneys. The time has come to consider amending the Constitution either to abolish the office of the vice president outright, or at least make it easier to engage in sober second thoughts and remove a potential successor to the presidency in whom the country has lost all trust.
What were the framers thinking when they established the office of vice president? The original vision underlying the Electoral College was that the vice president would be the person who came in second in the balloting for the presidency, with each elector casting two votes. In theory, at least, the vice president would be the person deemed by the politically sagacious electors to be the second most-qualified person in the country to be our chief executive.
This vision, circa 1787, assumed the lack of political parties and an emphasis by electors on the "civic virtue" of the candidates. And yet, even if one concedes the virtue of both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, our first two vice presidents, by 1796 they were political enemies, with strikingly different visions of the American future (as demonstrated by the fact that no individual elector made them his first and second choice). By 1800, America had developed its first system of organized political parties, and Adams and Jefferson ran against each other as leaders of the bitterly opposed Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties.

That election ended in a fiasco when Jeffersonian electors did not have the wit to give Aaron Burr, Jefferson's running mate, one electoral vote less than Jefferson received. Instead, the two men received the same majority of electoral votes, throwing the election into the Federalist-controlled, lame-duck House of Representatives. It took 36 ballots and the threat of armed intervention by the Virginia and Pennsylvania militias before the Federalists grudgingly selected Jefferson.

The Jeffersonian Congress reacted to the 1800 election by proposing in 1803 the quickly ratified 12th Amendment, which solved the peculiarity of a tie vote between the presidential and vice presidential candidates by establishing separate tracks for electing the two. Unfortunately, no one seems to have asked why we needed a vice president in the first place.

To be fair to the framers and to the amenders of 1803, one might acknowledge that they were writing on a clean slate, and perhaps forgive them for believing that the office of the vice president made sense. But looking back at the almost 220 years since the first American presidential election, in 1789, one discovers that there have been many times when the country would have been better off without a vice president at all.

History buffs are aware that two 19th-century presidents died in office (William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor), while two others were assassinated (Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield). They were succeeded by John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur, respectively -- at best nonentities, and at worst, as with Tyler and Johnson, disasters. Tyler, for example, was insistent on doing whatever he could to strengthen what was called the "slavocracy," while Johnson, as is well known, devoted most of his energies as Lincoln's successor to attempting to torpedo any significant "reconstruction" of the defeated Confederacy.

The 20th century is better on this score, giving us as successors to the Oval Office Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford. But consider some of the other possibilities had events taken a different course: One can well argue, for example, that Woodrow Wilson did a disservice to the country by remaining in office following a debilitating stroke in October 1919. But had he resigned, or had the stroke simply been fatal, the amiable but otherwise unqualified former Indiana senator Thomas Marshall would have succeeded him during the crucial period following the Paris Peace Conference and the bitter conflict it generated about US ratification of the Versailles Treaty.
Had anything happened to Franklin Delano Roosevelt early in his tenure, he would have been succeeded at a time of national crisis by former Speaker of the House John Nance ("Texas Jack") Garner, who shared neither Roosevelt's imagination nor his political skills. More recently, of course, we had the spectacle of the ultimately disgraced Spiro Agnew and the remarkably unfit Dan Quayle being one heartbeat away from succeeding Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush, respectively.

Furthermore, a look at the historical record demonstrates that "We the People" have, in fact, gone many years in which nobody occupied the vice president's office. (Successsion-in-office acts have always designated the next in line to the presidency in the event of a tragedy.) It was only in 1967, with the ratification of the 25th Amendment, that a procedure was established to assure that there would always be a vice president. This accounts for Nixon being able to name Gerald Ford to the office following Agnew's resignation and Ford's naming Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president.

Prior to that, the office simply remained vacant if a vice president succeeded to the presidency or, more commonly, if the vice president died in office. Succession to the White House by Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Teddy Roosevent, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, and Ford accounts for 27 years of vacancies.

In addition, a surprising number of vice presidents died in office; indeed, it was almost a kiss of death throughout the 19th century. For example, both of James Madison's vice presidents (George Clinton and Massachusetts's own Elbridge Gerry) died remarkably early in their term in office. Running mates chosen by Franklin Pierce, Grover Cleveland, and William McKinley -- William R. King, Thomas Hendricks, and Garrett Hobart, respectively -- also died so quickly that all of these presidents basically served their entire terms without a vice president because of the almost immediate deaths of their running mates. Other vice presidential deaths came later in presidential terms.

In all, then, for about 45 years since the inauguration of George Washington, we have been without a vice president, and no one seemed to notice, or believe the nation was in peril.
It is worth noting that Dick Cheney has one of the better resumes of American vice presidents, with a wide range of experience in both the legislative and executive branches. In this respect, he is no Agnew or Quayle. But a fine resume alone doesn't qualify a person to be president. There are other, equally important qualities that Cheney is lacking.

If you are part of the majority of the population that cringes at the possibility of a Cheney presidency, the only practical advice is to pray for George Bush's health. Should something happen to the president, and should Cheney succeed to the White House, it could trigger a political crisis of stunning dimensions, given the widespread lack of trust, at home and abroad, in his judgment and commitment to basic notions of the American republic. Nevertheless, he would have gotten to the White House because of the Constitution.

The presidential candidates of both parties should be asked to explain, at least once in their frenzied campaigning, why exactly the country is well served by the current structure of presidential succession and whether they would support a constitutional amendment either eliminating the vice presidency entirely or, at the very least, making the vice president removable, either by the president or Congress, should the prospect of a given vice president's succession provoke more horror than confidence. It should not be necessary to rev up the basically unworkable machinery of formal impeachment in such cases.
We best honor those who declared our independence 231 years ago by having the willingness they exhibited to cast a cold eye on existing political institutions and to decide whether they are suitable to the times. We have good reason to be grateful for much they bequeathed us. But the entrenched vice presidency is an idea whose time has passed; we should amend the Constitution to eliminate it.

Sanford Levinson, a professor of law at the University of Texas Law School, will be a visiting professor at the Harvard Law School this fall. He is the author of "Our Undemocratic Constitution."

Sox and the City

I have been and probably always will be a fan of the Boston Red Sox. Living in New Haven, there was never anything more irksome than going out to the local bar and having to endure the boastful braggadoccio of Yankee yahoos, replete with their interlocking NY caps worn brim towards the back and/or player-name pinstriped replica jerseys. Uttering phrases like, "Yeah, Yanks rock...that's right, crush those pansy-ass Red Sox!" and "Yanks rule...Red Sux suck...eat it suckers," it was enough to get you to bust out a bat and launch their head into Long Island Sound.

That the Sox came back from three games down against the Yanks and then went on to win the World Series in 2004 wasn't enough to shut them up. Sure, at first, it was a stinging blow...a virtual dagger in the heart of the beast that had for so long dominated the division and the epic playoff showdowns. However, it was not long before the excuse train came rumbling through. "The Sox backed into the playoffs - with the wild-card", "Sure the Yanks choked, which only proves that the Red Sox really weren't good enough to beat them otherwise", "if it wasn't for that rain delay, we would have swept you", or "so what...got rings...??? Got 26 rings??? I don't think so!!!"

Like it or not, the Yankees and their fan base had to come to terms with the fact that the Boston Red Sox won the World Series. The Yankees have now gone longer than the Red Sox without a World Series win. Though it's been a mere seven seasons since the Yankees last won the Series, for them and Mr. Steinbrenner, it might as well be an eternity. The Yankees, even after 2004, have continued to enjoy dominance in the American League East. Last season, the Red Sox didn't even make the playoffs. To make matters worse, they didn't even finish just behind the Yankees...they finished third!

As of today, with tonight's win, the Red Sox are 50-31 - they currently hold an 11 game lead over the hated Yankees, who are third in the AL East. The Sox boast the best record in all of baseball. The Yankees, I think, are at roughly 38-41. There is plenty of time however, for a Red Sox meltdown. Last season, going into a pivotal 5 game series with the Yankees at Fenway, the Sox managed to drop all 5 games in what was dubbed the Boston Massacre. This catapulted the Bombers to first in the AL East, having supplanted the front-running Sox, who up until then had enjoyed the lead in the division most of the season. After that, the Yanks never looked back. The Sox starting rotation was in shambles and they had no offense. The Yanks had some key injuries early in the season, but they plugged up the holes well enough to stay competitive and to eventually overtake the Sox. The Red Sox, who had started strong, were plagued with injuries mid-season - precisely the worst time for that to happen.

Even if the Red Sox fail to implode by August, the competition will be stiff come the playoffs.
The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are nipping at their heels, vying to overtake them for the best overall record - fortunately they are in a different division. The Detroit Tigers and Minnesota Twins are no joke, either. Toronto is in the AL East, and while they are still several games out, the Sox have to play a pivotal series against them soon.

The Sox success thus far this season has been due to their pitching. Daisuke Matsuzaka, or simply "Dice-K", has been fairly strong as a starter, though he's anything but a sure thing. Curt Schilling is usually pretty solid and he came oh-so close to notching a no-no this season, only to get shelled a few games later. He's out with an injury currently. Josh Beckett has had quite the season thus far, going 11-2 to this point. Tim Wakefield, the knuckle-ball thrower, is just a junk-ball pitcher. That and his age are truly showing - one of the Red Sox mainstays for several years is losing his edge, and I'm not sure he ever had one. Julian Tavarez, who rounds out the 5th spot in the rotation has been a pleasant surprise. Though he is quite the eccentric one, he has won his share of games. He has filled the bill nicely as Jon Lester continues to work on his comeback from his bout with cancer last season. The bullpen has been the real story, however. Jonathan Papelbon, the closer, has continued to be lights out. Very often, it is one, two, three and done when he is asked to shut the door. It's hard to fathom they had considered moving him to a starter's role before the season began. Another gem has been Hideki Okajima. He bridges the divide very nicely between the SP and Papelbon. However, when called upon to close the door himself, Okajima doesn't disappoint. He was picked up just before the Sox signed Matsuzaka, and together, this Japanese pair has provided a serious upgrade for Red Sox pitching. Unfortunately, due to a lackluster offense, the strong pitching is about the only thing that keeps them in some games and gives them a chance to hang on for wins.

If you want a list of Red Sox players who currently suck, look no further than Julio Lugo, Coco Crisp, and J.D. Drew. Julio Lugo, who is also believed to be a former wife beater, couldn't hit a beach ball if it were simply sitting beside him. To make matters worse, he is not even the great base stealer he was billed to be. Of course, part of that is because he doesn't actually get on base. Lugo is the fourth RedSox shorstop in as many seasons, and he may actually be the worst of the three, at least offensively. Coco Crisp, who may as well be Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, isn't much better. The Sox actually allowed Johnny Damon to leave in order to get Coco? Were they nuts? Apparently. The Sox don't make good decisions. Letting Damon go and thinking that going after Coco would pay great dividends was a gross miscalculation. As oft-injured as Damon is with the Yankees, he still plays through pain and he still gets his hits and makes his plays out in center field. If Coco breaks a nail, he's on the DL. Even when he's not on the DL, Coco isn't scary at the plate. His batting stance isn't even scary...it's quite strange and it can't be helping his swing. Then there is J.D. Drew. Drew is the poster child of underachievers in baseball. He expects to get paid his megabucks, but he doesn't feel like he needs to earn his paycheck. Every once in a while, he will have a good game and then point to that as a means of silencing any of his critics. However, he will then go right back to his typical buffoonery at the plate. There is a reason so many teams gave up on him and didn't want him. The Sox apparently thought they were getting some kind of deal with him. Well, they got a deal. They got a raw deal.

The few runs per game the Sox do manage to get are usually courtesy of guys like Kevin Youkilis, the rookie Dustin Pedroia, and not to be outdone Alex Cora. If a guy like Cora played everyday at SS instead of Lugo, the team would be a lot better off. Mike Lowell has been a strong third baseman both defensively and offensively. This was a guy who was included as an expensive throw in as part of the deal to get Beckett from Florida a few years ago. However, Lowell and Beckett turned out to be one of the best deals the Sox have ever made, relatively speaking - because the Sox and good deals are not typically seen in the same sentence.

David Ortiz, or Big Papi and Manny (being Manny) Ramirez were once considered to be the scariest part of the order. They both got their 30-40 or so homers and 100 plus RBIs. Their numbers thus far have been way down, so you can't even count on them as much as you could before. Big Papi won several games for the Red Sox in the clutch for a few seasons, often times at the last at-bat, when the Sox were down to their final out. Papi would swing his big bat and the long ball would give Boston a thrilling walk-off win! Not any more it seems. Those days seem like a distant memory already.

Perhaps Big Papi and Manny will catch fire again and the Red Sox offense will eat up opposing pitching. Perhaps, the Red Sox staff will be plagued soon with injuries again, and then slowly but surely, the Yankees will catch up.

If the Red Sox play at least as good as they are now or if they go on a good tear or two, they should be fine. If they start to falter and break down however, it may not be long before fans in the heart of Red Sox Nation utter those familiar words...

How 'bout those Mets?