Assachusetts, Part 2

On the heels of my last column comes Time magazine's article, "Have the Sox Become the Yanks?". Basically, it sums up my point that, in order to finally start winning, Boston-area teams chose to sell out and become everything they hated (and incessantly whined about) in the first place.

There's no greater indication of our country's disdain for this pattern than the fact that Boston teams are on top of the sports world right now and, instead of congratulating them, all anyone can say is how unfortunate it is.

Assachusetts

In my time, I've learned one unchanging fact about people from Massachusetts: they are terrible, terrible human beings. A city's sports teams tend to reflect the temperament and personality of the community that supports them, and Boston-area sports teams are always the worst. And for long as I can remember, they've always been that way. Even as a kid I remember watching Kevin "cheap shot" McHale and the Celtics scratch and claw their way through the NBA playoffs in the '80s.

Unfortunately, things are much, much worse now. Every Boston fan I know is basically carrying around an extra set of underwear in case he might have to talk about the Sox or Pats or Celtics. Not that anyone bothers to ask them about their teams, mind you. But for some reason they insist on thinking that we care.

"Hey man, how bout those Sox!!!! Pretty sweet comeback, yeah?"

"Yeah, it was really sweet watching them get shut down by top-notch pitchers like Paul Byrd and Jake Westbrook in those middle games. And to see Manny standing at the plate, doing his pathetic home run stare, after hitting a ball that doesn't even clear the wall. And to watch Papelbon flex like a retarded monkey after "saving" a 10-run lead. And to watch the Boston "faithful" cheer J.D. Drew for his grand slam after booing him constantly for the past year and demanding he be traded. I mean, how could you not be proud?"

"........fuck yeah dude! Sox rule!!!!"

The Pats are the same arrogant team with the same half-snob, half-jackass fanbase. If you haven't been following the NFL season, the big story is that, after they got caught blatantly cheating, the Patriots have now decided to run up the score against every team they play in a big "FU" to the league. Easterbrook summed it best in his column this week:

Dishonesty, cheating, arrogance, hubris, endless complaining even in success. The Patriots have three Super Bowl rings, but that jewelry is tarnished by their cheating scandal. They run up the score to humiliate opponents -- more on that below -- thus mocking sportsmanship. Their coach snaps and snarls in public, seeming to feel contempt for the American public that has brought him wealth and celebrity. Victory seems to give Bill Belichick no joy, and defeat throws him into fury. Belichick and the rest of the top of the Patriots' organization continue to refuse to answer questions about what was in the cheating tapes -- and generally, you refuse to answer questions if you have something to hide. The team has three Super Bowl triumphs, yet its players regularly whine about not being revered enough. The team's star, Tom Brady, is a smirking sybarite who dates actresses and supermodels but whose public charity appearances are infrequent. That constant smirk on Brady's face reminds one of Dick Cheney; people who smirk are fairly broadcasting the message, "I'm hiding something." The Patriots seem especially creepy at this point because we still don't know whether they have told the full truth about the cheating scandal -- or even whether they really have stopped cheating. They say they have, but their word is not exactly gold at this juncture. Ladies and gentlemen, representing Evil, the New England Patriots.

As the column later discusses, this bitterness is even more ridiculous because they have absolutely no right to be angry. I mean, they're upset because they got caught cheating? Boo hoo. Why would anyone in the world feel bad for these cheating millionaires? Why should we feel anything but contempt? If you've ever in your life valued sportsmanship, you should be cheering against this team every week.

Perhaps the worst part about all this is that the fans don't seem to care. But then again, that returns us to my main point: these are terrible people in the first place. Instead of wearing those ugly-yet-ubiquitous Boston caps, they should just wear a shirt that reads "Win At All Costs."

Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of good people from the area. But why haven't I met any of them yet? Until then, my opinion remains unchanged. The bitterness, self-entitlement, petulance, and nonstop whininess of these teams is not only accepted but embraced by people who share those same qualities.

I guess it really is hard living in the shadow of a great city.

----

No more than an hour after I posted this, this column appeared on the frontpage of CNNSI.com: Boston enjoying run, losing mystique. A quick read, but definitely worthwhile.

----

And I'm so glad I found THIS today as well. Apparently the anti-Boston movement is rapidly gaining steam. You see, it's not that the world is just now recognizing how much these people suck. We've known that for years. It's just that these cretins were so much easier to ignore when they were shouting racist insults at their own players instead of riding around on all these bandwagons.

USA Today = God's Newspaper

I won't lie about this. I'm a big fan of USA Today. Always have been. My friends, who evidently consider themselves too good for our country's #1 paper, insist it's not worth reading. Keep in mind, many of these people read Entertainment Weekly like a Bible. I don't understand it either. And while there's a local paper I could get instead, my community just isn't worth an hour's worth of reading per day. To me, it makes more sense to read about my country in half the time. Plus, USA Today has lots of colorful pictures. I like that. The world needs more color.

Until now, my affair with USA Today has occured in airports around the world. (And yes, I just passed up about fifty different Senator Craig jokes.) This month, however, I ordered my first-ever subscription to the paper. I got papers on Friday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and life was good. I did Sudoku puzzles, crosswords, phrase games, and word searches. I checked out movie reviews. I learned everything I wanted to about what happened in the world the day before. And I read the sports lines, just in case I live in a world one day where sports gambling is legal.

But panic struck the following day. I went out to check my mail only to notice... no paper. Friday? No paper. And on Monday... nothing again. I was heartbroken. How was I suppose to assess my role in the world without USA Today's colorful depictions? How could I buy anything without its minimialist moneyline graphs? And where was I to go that weekend without consulting its Friday "Destinations" section?

Yesterday, I called customer service and reported the problem. They assured me things would return to normal. I assured them they'd better be right. I don't take any shit when it comes to my USA Today.

Today, all the missing papers as well as today's paper showed up in a plastic bag on my doorstep. Inside the bag was a business card from a special carrier. His name is Terry Christ. Christ delivered my USA Today today. I always knew there was something special about this paper. Now it's confirmed: USA Today is God's paper.

I'm holding onto this business card so I can wave it in front of the heretics who are still ordering the New York Times. You know, I never suspected that paper might *actually* be run by the Jewish-controlled media... until Christ showed up with my USA Todays. Will my new paper carrier be the cause of a personal revelation? Or will he (He?) plunge me into a spiritual crisis?

One thing is for sure: the "Life" section never felt so relevant.

Craigslist, Part 3

First, the NY Daily News has picked up on the golddigging ad and the priceless response it drew. Find it here.

Also, I can't overemphasize how classic some of these listings are. Check out this one about Darwinism and M&Ms:

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels.

Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the "loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world.

Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3x5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes."

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion.

There can be only one.

Craigslist, Part 2

Someone tipped me off about this hilarious ad which appeared yesterday on the NYC craigslist:

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy. I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think I'm overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms

-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my feelings

-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?

- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?

- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.

PostingID: 432279810

The response may be the greatest thing I have ever read:

Dear Pers-431649184:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump." I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.

Craigslist, Part 1

A few weeks ago, I was in the Reno-Carson area of Nevada for, naturally, a job interview. The interview went great, the area was beautiful, and for the most part I enjoyed myself on the trip. Except for last day. My return flight went through Chicago, which happened to be under 5 feet of water when I needed to be there. The flight was rescheduled for the next morning so I had to find a place to stay.

At this point, I was so tired and pissed off that I went with the cheapest option available. As any seasoned traveler will tell you, you generally get what you pay for with hotels, and this was no exception. For that night, I was a guest at the Chateau Ghetto.

Perhaps the most telling sign came after I had checked in and was sitting in the "lobby" watching TV. I'm reluctant to say "lobby" because it was more of a trash heap and ammunition dump, but they insisted on calling it a lobby. Against all odds they actually had a working computer for guests to use. A staff member was currently using it but since I needed to send emails I decided to wait for her.

Since my sofa - which, incidentally, looked like someone had ripped out the back seat of a car and placed it in the room - was facing the computer, I couldn't help but notice what this girl was doing. She was going through the personals on craigslist and surfing through the 18+ section, flipping through every entry and looking at every picture, while I was sitting there waiting to check email. Unbelievable.

Just as I thought the day couldn't get any worse, she reached into a natty bookbag and pulled out a CD to put into the computer. Suddenly, pics of her in lingerie start popping up on the screen. What the fuck! My horror unfolds as I realize she's actually putting up a booty call ad for herself right there in the hotel lobby. This is NOT a girl you want to see in lingerie. Her ad title described her as "juicy." By the way, I just threw up in my mouth.

After uploading all her pictures, she posted the ad and mercifully closed the window before walking off. Even today, I'm still trying to process all of this. Who carries around CDs with scandalous pics of themselves? Isn't your driver's license enough? Can you imagine a police station holding the item as lost property and saying, "Well, I wasn't sure it was her at first, but the tits do match."

Furthermore, who the hell uploads these pics in a hotel lobby? I assume she didn't own a computer at home, which is fine, but at least go to a friend's house. Seriously, I've been less offended seeing people surfing through porn at university libraries. Although in retrospect, that's pretty weird too.

So gentlemen, if you're in the Tahoe area and looking for a "juicy" girl, just head onto craigslist and look for ads posted in cheap airport hotels. Make sure to filter your search to show only those posts with self-shot lingerie pics. With any luck, she might even put out.

Check Out This Huge Endowment!

Gregg Easterbrook (see previous post) made an entirely too reasonable point in his column last week, which explains why it's gone unnoticed save for this blog:

According to last week's Wall Street Journal, Harvard's endowment is up to $34.9 billion and Yale's has risen to $22.5 billion. To put those numbers into perspective, the Harvard endowment now exceeds the gross domestic product of Sri Lanka or Kenya and the Yale endowment exceeds the GDP of Costa Rica or Iceland.

It's wonderful that such great institutions of higher learning are funded so well, with assets that seem to assure their continued existence for centuries. But as Tuesday Morning Quarterback asked last year when Harvard's endowment hit a mere $29 billion, why does anyone pay anything at all to attend this school?

Conservatively managed investments using low-risk strategies yield 5 to 7 percent per year; federal law requires many types of philanthropies to disburse a minimum of 5 percent per year or lose their tax-exempt status. At 5 percent, the Harvard endowment would throw off $1.7 billion annually. That's $104,000 for each of the 16,715 undergrads and graduate students currently attending the university. Yet according to College Board figures, the average undergrad who lives on campus at Harvard this year will pay $37,900, that being the official price minus average financial aid award. Can Harvard seriously expect us to believe it is spending $144,000 per year per undergraduate? (That's the actual payments from students plus 5 percent of the endowment.) Shifting Harvard's endowment spending from empire-building to reducing tuition -- either lower prices for everyone, or, say, eliminating all costs for students from families that make $200,000 or less -- would be a tremendous progressive step without jeopardizing Harvard's legitimate desire to hold a rich endowment into the indefinite future.

Instead, Harvard just keeps charging an arm and a leg and the endowment keeps empire-building. One result of the extremely high cost of private colleges is that many graduates feel they must go into high-paying professions to justify what was just spent. If Harvard were free for students whose families aren't rich, or cost much less for all students, perhaps graduates would be more likely to become public-school teachers or Peace Corps volunteers or work for the U.S. Public Health Service or in legal-aid settings. Rather than use its colossal financial assets to educate a generation of smart people willing to serve society in thanks for a great education at little cost, Harvard continues to soak parents, teach money obsession and set an example of hoarding.

First of all, yes, this is from a blog about the NFL. Secondly, I couldn't agree more. My only explanation is that the people who go to Harvard have so much money that the cost of tuition is like a drop in the ocean to them. 99% of us wouldn't have that money to begin with, and even if we did, we wouldn't toss it away in light of these facts. But as Easterbrook points out, it's not even just about money. It's about getting some of our best and brightest into fields where they can create a better world for everyone instead of a better world for their creditors.

Unfortunately, the racket that is higher education continues to roll along unresisted and largely unheeded.

The Wide World of Sports... Columnists

My friends know I get all my news from sports columns, and I encourage anyone with even an fledgling interest in sports to adopt this practice. Sports have all the same things that might interest you in CNN or BBC or any other news provider:

* Breaking news ("Delhomme Opts for Season-Ending Surgery")
* Community news ("Vick's High School Distancing Itself From Star")
* Op-ed pieces ("USC Needs Change, Starting with Quarterback")
* Rankings ("NFL Power Poll, Week 5")
* Interviews ("Broncos' Henry: I didn't smoke weed")
* Entertainment news ("Broncos' Henry: I didn't smoke weed, but my teammates did")
* And of course, sports scores

Today's sports columns are not what you might expect. The best ones still focus on hot topics and noteworthy games, of course, but they now integrate everything from movie reviews to political commentary.

Two columns in particular stand out. The first is Bill Simmons' column on ESPN, which can be found HERE . I've already referred to his work in this blog, but it bears repeating that he's good for a few great observations per column. Simmons is a 30-something guy who's in the midst of several huge changes in his life, including moving from Boston to L.A., having children for the first time, and seeing the Red Sox actually coming through in the clutch.

The other columnist is Gregg Easterbrook, also from ESPN. I don't know much about this man, other than he loves to write a really long column every Tuesday on the state of the NFL, and that he does it for free. While Simmons' columns are heavy on entertainment references, Easterbrook tends toward political insight. His column can be found HERE.

Check these guys out. You won't be disappointed.