Wednesday, January 31, 2007

On Compulsory Health Insurance

The Boston Globe published this article on January 30th, revealing that, lo and behold, the proposed compulsory health insurance system will require much greater out-of-pocket payments than what was originally thought. I wrote the following back in April, when Governor Mitt Romney first announced the proposed system. I feel the same way today.

==========================================

Firstly, the comparison between compulsory health insurance and compulsory auto insurance is just plain wrong. Auto insurance can be justified by the fact that driving a car is, at least nominally, a choice that someone can make. (Whether a choice really exists for people living in low-density areas not served by public transportation is another issue.) When you choose to register an automobile, you know that you will have to obtain insurance for it, and it is a factor that figures into your cost-benefit analysis. On the other hand, the responsibility to obtain health insurance under Gov. Romney's plan vests as soon as you are born, or at least upon your eighteenth birthday -- something over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE.

This plan amounts to nothing more than a tax, and it is a simple head tax, the likes of which do not exist elsewhere in the world of American government. You buy a house, you know that property taxes will be due. You buy retail goods and you know that you will have a sales tax to pay. You get a job and you know that the government will collect some portion of your income as taxes. While we can argue whether these choices are actually legitimate choices in practice, economic modeling shows that sales tax and income tax levels do affect how much people spend or work. In contrast, this health insurance tax accrues based on a decision that took place in the past, which people have no legitimate means to change. The essence of the American taxation system is that it is nominally elective, meaning that a person can adjust the amount of taxes he pays by adjusting his relevant activities accordingly. In this situation, the vital element of free will has been suffocated.

Secondly, this plan smacks of corporate handouts. Ideologically, and at the risk of being sacreligious, a Hillary Clinton-style universal health plan administered by the government (assuming that it would be managed in the most efficient manner -- a major assumption for sure) is more pure than the Massachusetts system. Political arguments notwhithstanding, a tax imposed and collected by the government in exchange for certain social services is ideologically legitimate. By contrast, a tax imposed by the government but collected by a third party private interest raises issues of the government abdicating its responsibilities to the private sector.

Government social services are compulsory -- you are taxed for them and you receive them, whether you like it or not, and the government does not make a profit. They pay out in benefits all of what they take in as tax revenues. Private services are optional -- you can choose whether you want to receive the benefits by paying for them. The firms will collect a profit on your purchase, but if the price they offer is worthwhile, you will pay it. Firms will set their price at a level that will generate utility for consumers. In the Massachusetts system, a line has been crossed. We are now forced to line insurance companies' pocketbooks under penalty of law, whether or not we feel the price they set is worth the benefits we receive. This insurance has become a completely inelastic good and people will have to take any price the insurance industry sets. Sure, the various insurance companies will remain competitive with one another, but one need look no farther than the oil companies to see what can happen when a little implicit collusion takes place. Rest assured that the Massachusetts insurance industry is celebrating a huge windfall today.

Finally, I take issue with the government telling me that I need to mitigate my risk. As a 25-year-old male in good health with no chronic medical conditions, no need for eyeglasses, and no regular prescription medications, a retail health insurance policy is a bad deal for me. I'm willing to take the chance of ending up in the hospital, and if I do, then I've lost my bet and I'll pay the bill. This compulsory insurance system is socialism, since healthy folks like myself will be forced to contribute to insurance plans that subsidize those who receive extensive medical treatments. I might even have less incentive to keep myself out of the hospital under the new system.

I found the initial proposal by Governor Romney more palatable. Originally, a patient who entered an emergency room and did not have insurance would be signed up for a state-based program with paycheck withdrawals, unless they could pay the bill themselves, thus preserving people's free will to decide whether or not they want to participate in an insurance scheme. In the current plan, that remaining element of free will has been wiped out. Frankly, I find it despicable that a REPUBLICAN governor positioning himself for a presidential run would impose a socialist insurance system, seizing people's rights to make their own decisions on how they want to plan for their future health care needs and imposing mandatory participation in an insurance scheme controlled by profit-making private actors.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Top Five Vegas Hotels

As I haven't actually stayed in any of these hotels, this top five list constitutes a wish list.

1. Luxor
The idea of staying in a 30-story black glass pyramid just seems really cool to me. The hotel rooms open onto the largest atrium in the world. Because of the slant of the building, instead of escalators, you take inclinators up a 39-degree slope to get to your room.

2. Bellagio
The Bellagio is the paragon of luxury along the Las Vegas strip. Remarkably, the hotel pulls off this delivery of luxury without succumbing to the tackiness found at most other Strip resorts. Try to get a room facing the fountains for half-hourly performances of Vegas' most gorgeous free shows.

3. New York New York
This casino replicates the New York City skyline. But those buildings are not mere ornaments. They actually house the hotel rooms. Book a room here and there's a chance you'll be staring at the Strip from the Las Vegas version of the Chrysler or Empire State Buildings.

4. Venetian
This hotel is a rather well-executed but still tacky recreation of the city of Venice (minus the stench of death). It boasts the largest standard rooms on the Strip at 650 square feet, with marble foyers, sunken living room areas, and private fax machines. Plus, there's a rooftop garden.

5. Paris
The staff at this hotel is much more likely to speak Spanish than French (trust me, on a drunken night once, I tried). But the little Continental touches, along with the half-scale Eiffel Tour and Arc de Triomphe, at least invoke Paris, even if they fall short of replicating it.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Top Five Types Of Predators

My favorite ongoing television newsmagazine expose series continues this Tuesday, with a sweeps month extravanganza of six new episodes. Of course, I speak of no other than Dateline NBC's "To Catch A Predator." While I can watch an endless stream of pedophiles be lured into a house only to be confronted by Chris Hansen all day long, I do have my favorite types of predators.

1. The White-Collar Predator
I expect the sketchy perverts with the biker shirts or the excessive gold jewelry to come rolling into the sting house. But I love seeing the mild-mannered, buttoned-down doctor or the clean-cut Indian software engineer stop by for some little underage playtime. It goes to show that no matter what our station in life, all of us have needs.

2. The Naked Guy
It hasn't been done much lately, but sometimes, once the predator would enter the house, the decoy would ask him to take his clothes off. Naturally, the guy would comply, because that request is not the least bit weird. I don't quite know what the purpose of this little exercise was, beyond humiliating the guy by forcing him to stand there buck naked when Chris Hansen walked into the room. Actually, that's a purpose in and of itself.

3. The Pleader
When Chris Hansen performs his grand entrance, many of the predators will insist they are only there to make friends with the decoy or help her with homework. They will apologize profusely, sometimes dropping to their knees, explaining that they made a terrible mistake. The best Pleaders are those who mistakenly think that Chris Hansen is a police officer, or even better, the girl's father.

4. The Heinously Ugly Guy
I actually feel a little bit sorry for this guy. The only way he can get sex is passing himself off on the internet as some kind of Adonis and then taking advantage of a supposed 16-year-old girl. This guy has to know something is up, since he has never succeeded at propositioning anyone so easily. Everyone deserves action once in a while, but still, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it, and while The Heinously Ugly Guy chose the wrong way, it's largely out of necessity.

5. The Guy Who Knows Something's Up
There are actually two sub-types of The Guy Who Knows Something's Up. The first sees Chris Hansen and bolts right back out the front door before he's confronted, only to land directly in the arms of the waiting police. The second has seen the Dateline series before and knows he's fallen into a trap. Yet, when Chris Hansen asks him why he still showed up at the house, the guy always has some ridiculously lame excuse.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

24 Body Count: 6:00-11:00 a.m.

6:00 a.m. - 7:00 a.m.

6:01 a.m. - 9 passengers on Los Angeles bus and 5 bystanders (approximated), blown up by terrorist suicide bomber

6:58 a.m. - henchman of Abu Fayed, neck bitten by Jack Bauer

DEATHS IN THIS HOUR: 15
CUMULATIVE DEATHS: 15

7:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m.

7:15 a.m. - 4 henchmen of Hamri Al-Assad in safe house, blown up by military Cobra helicopter missle strike

7:36 a.m. - Omar (Assad henchman), shot by Assad after giving address for rendezvous point

7:44 a.m. - Stan (Ahmed Amar's racist neighbor), shot by Amar after attacking him

7:54 a.m. - Nasir (Fayed henchman), blown up after failed suicide bombing attempt in Los Angeles Subway

7:57 a.m. (announced) - 47 guests (according to news report), killed in bombing at Chicago hotel

7:58 a.m. (announced) - 200+ customers (according to Bill Buchanan, at 8:01 a.m.), killed in bombing in Baltimore shopping mall

DEATHS IN THIS HOUR: 254
CUMULATIVE DEATHS: 269

8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.

8:01 a.m. (announced) - 65 addition people, killed in bombing at unspecified location in St. Louis (Note: this may be the same explosion as the Chicago bombing referred to in the last hour, since CTU speaks of three total attacks, one of which was averted. The continuity error will be presumed, and the incremental deaths from this attack will be tallied now.)

8:45 a.m. - CTU TAC team member, shot by Masheer (Fayed henchman)

8:45 a.m. - Masheer, suicide in self-storage facility from grenade

8:56 a.m. - Man at electronic parts store, head pounded into ground by Ray Wallace

DEATHS IN THIS HOUR: 68
CUMULATIVE DEATHS: 337

9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.

9:41 a.m. - Ahmed Amar, shot by CTU TAC team after he was about to kill Scott Wallace (pronounced dead at 9:57 a.m.)

9:53 a.m. - Curtis Manning, shot by Jack Bauer as he was about to kill Assad

9:57 a.m. - Fayed henchman and two CTU TAC team members, killed in firefight

9:58 a.m. - 12,000+ people (estimated, blast only, does not include fallout) including Ray Wallace, Hasan Numair, and CTU TAC team, nuclear suitcase bomb detonation

DEATHS IN THIS HOUR: 12,005
CUMULATIVE DEATHS: 12,342

10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.

DEATHS IN THIS HOUR: None
CUMULATIVE DEATHS: 12,342

Friday, January 26, 2007

Top Five Jack Bauer Kills

1. Marshall Goren, Day 2
Jack Bauer had just been reactivated earlier in the hour. He needed to establish rapport with a band of domestic terrorists in a hurry. So, he had CTU arrange for the FBI to bring Marshall Goren, the lead witness in the case, in for questioning. When Goren came into CTU, he refused to give any information, since he already had a deal with the FBI. But Jack didn't have questioning in mind for Goren. Instead, he fired a point blank shot into Goren's chest, then delivered one of the greatest lines in 24 history: "I'm going to need a hacksaw." He brought Goren's severed head to the terrorists and was welcomed into the organization in a hurry.

2. Ryan Chappelle, Day 3
On Day 3, Jack Bauer got to do what most people only fantasize about: killing their boss. Terrorist Stephen Saunders demanded the execution of CTU Regional Division Director, under threat of releasing a deadly virus into the public. CTU tried to locate Saunders before the 7:00 a.m. deadline for Chappelle's execution, but they prove unsuccessful. Jack had to take Chappelle to a train yard. Chappelle begged Jack to hand him the gun so that he could kill himself, but when he proved unable to do it himself, Jack grabbed the gun and fired one shot point-blank into Chappelle's head.

3. Curtis Manning, Day 6
Manning was an agent in CTU's field ops team during Days 4 and 5. At the start of Day 6, Jack convinced Hamri Al-Assad, who had recently disavowed terrorism, to join CTU as it sought to combat the present terrorist threat. Jack gave Assad his word that he would keep him safe. Manning was not as willing to forgive, since Assad had personally beheaded some of Manning's fellow soldiers during the Gulf War. Manning grabbed Assad and held a gun to his head, saying that he couldn't "let this animal live." Jack had no choice but to shoot Curtis in the neck.

4. Nina Myers, Day 3
In Day 1, Myers was introduceded as the woman with whom Jack had an affair. By the end of the day, she ended up being revealed as a mole and killed Jack's wife Teri just before midnight. On Day 3, she was brought back to CTU for interrogation. She made the agent pierce her in the neck with a syringe, then escaped from the CTU clinic. She cornered Jack's daughter Kim in the server room, and just before she shot Kim, Jack shot her in the shoulder to disarm her. Then, even though she was immobile, Jack shot her three more times, making sure she was dead.

5. Christopher Henderson, Day 5
Henderson was already captured by Jack once and taken into custody. In order to enlist his help in raiding a Russian submarine, CTU promises Henderson full immunity and Jack promises to help him escape altogether afterward. Once the raid proved successful, Henderson pulled a gun on Jack, but it proved to be fully unloaded. Jack's gun, however, was not so empty. In order to avenge the death of three of his friends earlier that day, Jack went back on his word, firing two rounds into Henderson's chest, killing him instantly.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Top Five Rock Albums

This list is just one man's opinion about his favorite albums. I do not in any way maintain that they represent the greatest albums in the history of music. Three or four good songs do not put an album on this list -- it must be amazing from top to bottom. Also, greatest hits albums or other compliations do not qualify.

1. Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
I was introduced to this album by synching it up with The Wizard Of Oz movie placed on mute. You don't even need to be particularly intoxicated to see that it works. But aside from the Oz coincidence, Dark Side is an intense, haunting, synaesthetic experience.

2. Pink Floyd, The Wall
It's no accident that Pink Floyd holds the top two spots on this list. The Wall is theater through music. It's a brilliantly cynical collection of music best enjoyed with the volume cranked up while speeding down the highway. It's one of the best ways I know to channel and rid yourself of aggression.

3. U2, Achtung Baby
This album has sentimental value to me. Not only was it the first U2 album I listened to, but it was the first rock album altogether that I got to know. While people tend to hold up The Joshua Tree as U2's most iconic piece of work, I believe that Achtung is U2's most consistent album. There isn't a single bad song on there.

4. The Rolling Stones, Some Girls
I never could understand why people are so willing to plunk down $300 to see Mick Jagger and the Stones live in concert. Then I listened to this album. I'm still not sure Mick and the boys can bring it the way they used to, but if what they do on stage nowadays comes anywhere close to what they were able to do on this album, they're worth the money.

5. The Beatles, The White Album
It's another classic in the history of music. The Beatles' self-titled two-disc set, affectionately known as The White Album, displays both how talented The Beatles were and how they were able to create a repetoire that was amazingly diverse.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Staid Of The Union

Tonight is President Bush's State of the Union speech, and according to the national media, he has already crashed and burned, despite the fact that he hasn't yet actually delivered the speech. (Also, according to the national media, Hillary Clinton has been elected president in 2008 and The Departed has won the Oscar for Best Picture.)

Now, I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and I have more or less stood by him for the duration of his presidency. One of the things that appealed to me and the rest of the red staters was that unlike his predecessor Bill Clinton, who seemed to govern based on public opinion poll, Bush was not afraid to what he thought was right, even if it alienated half of the electorate. But even I feel that there is a limit to how far out on a limb Bush should go.

In law school, we often speak about the idea of legitimacy. For example, even if it carries the force of law, legislation must more or less mirror the morals of society, or else it will be impossible to enforce. Even the Supreme Court, the ivory tower to end all ivory towers, must keep a hand on the pulse of the nation to avoid being cast as a fellowship of aloof, irrelevant eccentrics. I am no expert on military strategy, and I certainly do not profess to know all the facts necessary to fairly second guess Bush's new Iraq policy. However, the troop escalation Bush has proposed does strike me as contrary to what three-quarters of Americans want to have happen. Even though he's a second-term president, Bush does have accountability to the American people. If he wants to be able to govern effectively and avoid being labled as a crackpot and written off as ineffective, he needs to listen to the electorate, at least once in a while. Maybe history will indeed vindicate him on this Iraq plan, but he may end up sacrificing the rest of his platform in the process.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Rough Night

Yeah, it was a tough one last night. I don't really want to talk very much about it. It ranks up there with Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, and Aaron Boone. But what I will say is that having someone to invite me over for fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies and red wine after the game made things just a little bit easier.

Wait 'til next year.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Cranky Charlie

While the MBTA's new electronic fare collection system is a great idea in theory, the reality is that such systems are really only as good as the technology that they're based around. The T has introduced all sorts of incentives to encourage you to use the RFID-based tap-and-go CharlieCard, including discounted fares (or, more accurately, avoidance of a surcharge) and free transfers between busses and subways. If you pay with a paper CharlieTicket, you are subject to the surcharge and only get transfers between local busses. If you pay with cash on board, you do not get free transfers at all.

Again, it's a great idea in theory, but as the Charlie on the MBTA blog points out, malfunctions are commonplace. Too often, CharlieCards fail to register when tapped. You get the dreaded "See Agent" message on the turnstile, first requiring you to track down an agent, then requiring you to make them figure out what the problem is. More often than not, they have no idea, and you are reluctant to try your card again, lest a second fare be deducted. Then, when you go to transfer to a bus, it might not be able to detect whether or not the card was used on the subway within the past two hours.

Technological snafus happen. It's a fact of life in the 21st century. The problem is that there's no paper trail backing you up when you claim something is wrong. The CharlieCard is a nondescript piece of plastic the size of a credit card. Nothing gets printed on it when you use it. The CharlieTicket prints your initial value, but does not show anything about how much money has been deducted or when it was used last. If you try to board a bus and claim that you are entitled to a free transfer even though the farebox charges you, it's your word against the MBTA's. By contrast, under the old system, with paper transfers, it was simple. You show up with a paper transfer in hand and you get on the bus for free. With the tokens, you buy them and have physical proof that you've paid your fare. In 25 years of riding the T, I had a subway turnstile fail on me exactly once. Even under the old system, monthly passes had the date and validity printed on them, so in case the turnstile wasn't working, you would just flash it to the person in the booth and they could let you in manually.

The dilemma is that the way to solve the problem defeats the purpose of the technology in the first place. To make the system failsafe, fareboxes and vending machines would print out transfer slips that you could use on the next leg of your journey. But why have the special RFID card or declining balance ticket when you are using printed paper fare media anyway? I guess what I'm trying to say is that as long as the T is requiring us to use modern technology if we want to avoid surcharges, it had better make damn sure that the technology is as close to perfectly reliable as possible.

P.S. It's another topic for another day, but while the Charlie Card system was designed to simplify the T's byzantine fare structure, it has merely made the structure equally byzantine but in a different way.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Peyton's Super Bowl Plans

Normally, I like to limit postings on It's A Magical World to original material. However, this article from The Onion was too funny to pass up. Plus, it gives me another opportunity to post a Peyton Manning sulky face picture. (Extra points if you can tell me during which game this picture was taken. Click on "Comments" for the answer.)

Peyton Manning Looking Forward To Ninth Annual Super-Bowl-Watching Party
January 18, 2007 | Issue 43•03

INDIANAPOLIS, IN—Colts quarterback Peyton Manning said Monday he is looking forward to wrapping up his football season and relaxing with friends and family while watching the Super Bowl, a tradition that goes back nine years in Manning's house and far longer in his extended family. "I believe in working hard each and every Sunday, but when the Super Bowl rolls around, that's my day to relax," Manning told reporters during a break from preparing for the upcoming AFC championship matchup against the Patriots. "As far as I myself am concerned, it's never gotten any better than spending Super Bowl Sunday watching the big game on TV surrounded by family and friends, like I have ever since I can remember." Manning said that the experience of watching the game was his main source of enjoyment, but if he was forced to choose, he would probably be rooting for Tom Brady to "win another one."

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Playing The Spread, Conference Championships

Enjoy the last weekend of real football. What do I mean by the last weekend of real football, seeing as how the Super Bowl is two weeks off? Well, the Super Bowl isn't real football (unless, of course, the Patriots are playing, which I'm hoping will be the case this year). The Super Bowl is played on a sterile, neutral field, chosen to minimize any chances of bad January weather. It is a star-studded affair, replete with pageantry. There is a pre-game extravaganza, an over-the-top (but no longer chest-baring) halftime show, and the only television commercials consistently worth watching all year. People watch the Super Bowl not because it's a football game, but because it's an event.

By contrast, the conference championships are a much more organic event. For starters, nobody knows where they will be held until a week beforehand (Super Bowl sites are selected three to five years in advance). We've seen snow in New England, rain in Seattle, and freezing cold in Green Bay. No domed stadium or warm-weather climate is necessary to host a conference championship. I do seem to recall some sort of rudimentary halftime show for these games, but for the life of me, I'm just not sure. That should tell you something. But I can rattle off a list of the last five or so Super Bowl halftime shows (counting this year, Prince, The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Janet Jackson's right breast, U2).

It's always a letdown when conference championship Sunday approaches. For the last two weeks, we have enjoyed four nationally-televised games between elite teams. This weekend, we're down to just two games. And we know in the back of our minds that next weekend, there won't be any football played at all. Enjoy it while you can.

The following picks are for entertainment purposes only and should not be used as the basis for any actual cash wagers.

Last week: 2-2
Season to date: 132-125-7
Final best bets: 9-10

Patriots (+3) over Colts
I feel like we've seen this movie before. All-World quarterback has yet to win the big game. He faces this hotshot kid with three championships already under his belt in only a six-year career. Mentoring the young hotshot is the brilliant but disheveled sensei. Same story, same result? Let's hope so. You people in Indianapolis might want to practice the Heimlich maneuver. I have a feeling you might need it around 10 p.m. Sunday night. LOSS

Bears (-3) over Saints
Oh yeah, there's another game to be played on Sunday. While everybody in America outside of Illinois is probably pulling for the Saints (this year's feel-good story), I think that the Bourbon Street magic has run out. Chicago has just a little bit more veteran experience, which should tip the scales in their favor. Imagine what they could do if they had a quarterback that the coaching staff actually trusted. WIN

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Analyzing The All-Stars

Well, CBS just announced which teams would be competing on the all-star edition of The Amazing Race. You remember that a few weeks ago, when they announced the all-star season, I offered my suggestions for who the all-stars should be. It turns out that I wasn't that far off.

Joe & Bill (Season 1)
As I predicted, Team Guido is back for more.

Kevin & Drew (Season 1)
No complaints here. The baldheaded frat boys already made a cameo appearance in the family edition. These fan-favorites are justifiably back for more.

Oswald & Danny (Season 2)
Nothing like Team Cha-Cha-Cha to add a little of flair to a great cast.

Teri & Ian (Season 3)
If Jonathan and Victoria couldn't make it (or were too big a liability to ask back), Ian will do just fine filling the abusive spouse slot.

John Vito & Jill (Season 3)
Absolutely a great choice. How could you not love this couple? Jill was the cute, perky blond while John Vito was the strong, silent-type boyfriend, who actually turned out to be a really nice guy. They're a hard-working team who rubbed nobody the wrong way.

Charla & Mirna (Season 5)
Bring on the dwarf! Charla (a/k/a Schmirna) is arguably the most driven contestant to ever run the race. And I guess her whiny cousin needs to come along as well.

Uchenna & Joyce (Season 7)
The lone former champions to be asked back, Joyce is sporting a new head of hair.

Rob & Amber (Season 7)
Stop me before I vomit. The biggest fame whores this side of Trista Rehn have been granted yet another fifteen minutes. Then again, can anybody honestly say they were surprised? It will give Rob a chance to lose his fifth straight reality show.

Eric & Danielle (Season 9)
They competed on separate teams the first time through, but one of the frat boys fell in love with one of the Double D's during the race, and now, they're an item. Why anybody would be turned on by a guy with nipple piercings is beyond me, but more power to them.

David & Mary (Season 10)
We knew that the coal miner and his wife would be asked back as soon as the last race concluded. I could do without Mary's shrieking voice, but in all fairness, no team grew as much by running the race as these two.

Dustin & Kandice (Season 10)
This selection is the only true head-scratcher in the bunch. What did Dustin and Kandice do to distinguish themselves from all the other blond pretty faces to run the race? I don't know either.

Biggest Omissions
I can't believe that the now-"divorced" couple of Chip and Reichen weren't asked back, unless, of course, reuniting them would cause their new boyfriends to slap fight to the death. I also think that Jonathan and Victoria should have been given a second chance, though I understand if the producers wanted to draw the line at verbal, instead of physical, spousal abuse.

The new season starts February 18th. Having not missed an episode since Season 2, I'll be tuning in for sure.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Shocking The Bolts

Yesterday's 24-21 win by the Patriots over the San Diego Chargers was a game for the ages. It was the first time since Super Bowl XXXVI that the Pats stole a game that they had little business winning. Sure, they've been an underdog since then (the AFC Championship against Pittsburgh in 2005 comes to mind), but in those games, they have taken control early and held down a lead for the remainder of the game.

The Pats executed the game plan perfectly. You cannot stop L.T. -- you can only hope to contain him. A 100-yard day with a touchdown or two is almost a foregone conclusion when you play against L.T. To beat him, you need to let him run wild at midfield but clamp down in the red zone. That's exactly what the Pats did, and by doing so, they forced the inexperienced Philip Rivers to win or lose the game himself. While Rivers' nerves were evident, too much cannot be said about the Pats' secondary, which came up big time and time again with perfectly-timed swats and jostling hits on receivers.

The Pats' offense was anemic for most of the game. Except for a clock-beating hurry-up drive that led to a touchdown at the end of the first half, Brady & Co. didn't do anything to speak of until midway through the fourth quarter. The top two running backs accounted for a grand total of 23 yards. But then, Tom Brady showed why he will never win a regular-season MVP award but nevertheless is the guy you want on your side in a win-or-go-home situation: Brady always finds a way to do just enough to win the game. He wasn't spectacular -- he was just plain smart. It doesn't matter who his supporting cast is, since castoffs like Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney seem to do the job just as well as guys like Deion Branch and David Givens.

As much credit as the Pats deserve for the improbable win, the Chargers deserve a load of blame. Marty Schottenheimer's puzzling decision to go for it on 4th-and-11 in the first quarter was ridiculous, but it wasn't the reason the Bolts lost. Drayton Florence's drive-sustaining personal foul call and Shane Oliva's post-PAT antics that resulted in a 15-yard markoff on the ensuing kickoff were both boneheaded decisions, but neither of them are responsible for the loss.

If I had to pin the blame on someone, it should be Marlon McCree, who intercepted Brady on fourth down, then promptly fumbled the ball back to the Pats, giving them a new set of downs that they converted for the game-tying score. On fourth down, you are better off swatting a pass and taking the ball at the line of scrimmage, rather than intercepting it and trying to run it back. McCree got greedy. There's no way he could have gotten the ball back to the line of scrimmage, so the best possible outcome would have been a net loss. The worst possible outcome was, well, we saw what happened. And everybody in Patriot Nation knew that when Kevin Faulk lined up next to Brady on the two-point conversion, he would get the direct snap. Evidently, none of the Chargers watched Super Bowl XXXVIII.

Now that the Bolts have been shocked, the Pats have a chance to eliminate Peyton Manning from the postseason for the third time in four years and punch their ticket to the big game in Miami. I can't wait until Sunday!

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Armed & Fabulous

My new favorite trash reality television show is Armed and Famous, which airs on CBS. It involves five C-list celebrities who complete the actual police academy and are sworn in as reserve police officers in Muncie, Indiana. Unlike something like The Simple Life, the celebrities actually take the job seriously -- well, four out of the five. The fifth is the human train wreck that goes by the name of LaToya Jackson, who I still believe is Michael in drag. It's hard to conduct a drug raid when you panic at the mere sight of a domesticated housecat.

Poetic justice insists that one of the celebrities must be Erik Estrada (a/k/a Ponch) from CHiPs. Thirty years later, he still looks great in uniform. It's too bad that the series was taped in December, because if the weather were warmer, they could stick him on a motorcycle, just like old times. (Cue the theme song.) Then, they also have the stunning Trish Stratus, formerly of the WWE. While she was gorgeous as a wrestler, she is even more spectacular (and yet highly competent) as a cop. If she pulled me over, I'd tell her that I had drugs stashed in an inappropriate place, just so she'd be forced to pat me down. (Is that a crack pipe in your pants or are you just happy to see me?)

Jack Osbourne, it turns out, is quite the sharpshooter, though after all the episodes of The Osbournes in which he was seen wandering through the backyard carrying a rifle and wearing camo gear, it shouldn't be much of a surprise. Finally, rounding out the cadets is Jason "Wee-Man" Acuna, from Jackass. Anyone who's seen that show knows that the dwarf is as tough as nails and doesn't take any crap from anyone, even when perps tell him to go away or they'll call the "real cops."

Yeah, it's mindless crap, but as far as celebreality shows go, it's pretty tolerable. Just think of it as watching an episode of Cops with officers who are a bit more colorful than usual. These celebs are actually doing a rather good job upholding the law and protecting the good people of Muncie. With the possible exception of LaToya, I do actually feel safer with them patrolling the streets. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Reality Television (the presence of a camera causes people to act differently than they would otherwise, so you can never film true reality) still applies, but I do get the sense that this show may be a bit more legit than most of the other nonsensical fodder that passes for reality TV these days.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Playing The Spread, Divisional Playoffs

Now that the dust has settled on Wild Card Weekend, we see that we might as well have skipped last week and just let the four division champions from each conference into the playoffs. If we did that, however, it would eliminate one of the greatest advantages in professional sports.

In baseball, football, and basketball, the higher-seeded team (or the winner of the All-Star Game) receives home field advantage. But that home field advantage means only that if the series lasts a full seven games, it is the decisive final game that is played in the home team's stadium. If the series doesn't last the full seven, then the homefield advantage is moot. In other competitions where one loss eliminates a team (i.e. March Madness, Frozen Four, games are generally played at a neutral site.

While home field for a one-and-done tournament is undoubtedly a huge advantage, an even bigger advantage is gained from the bye week a host team enjoys before the divisional round. After putting their bodies on the line for 16 of the previous 17 weeks, an extra seven days of rest is invaluable for these players. Some will claim that they want to have a game during Wild Card Weekend in order to preserve their momentum, but frankly, I don't believe that any pro football player would turn down a week off if it were offered to them.

With the homefield advantage and the bye week, along with the chance to play a lower-seeded team, it's no wonder that the home teams in the divisional round win something like 70-80% of the time. We'll soon see if that trend continues to hold true.

The following picks are for entertainment purposes only and should not be used as the basis for actual cash wagers.

Last week: 1-3
Season to date: 130-123-7
Best bets: 8-10

Patriots (+5) over Chargers
Come Sunday, you can add LaDanian Tomlinson to the long list of All-World running backs that Bill Belichick has managed to shut down. The Pats need to get the ball in Philip Rivers' hands as much as possible if they want to pull off the upset. WIN

Ravens (-3.5) over Colts
I don't know about you, but the two postseason events I'm looking forward to the most this year are Super Bowl XLI and Peyton Manning Choke VI. LOSS

Eagles (+5) over Saints
Congrats to the Saints for getting this far, but I don't think that a team with such minimal postseason experience can prevail this week. The only team in the NFC right now that is playing like they can make it to the Super Bowl is the Eagles. On a side note, I'd love to see Donovan McNabb's mother go mano-a-mano with Kurt Warner's mom. WIN

Bears (-8.5) over Seahawks
It took a gaffe of Bucknerian proportions for the Seahawks to get past the foundering Dallas Cowboys. Unless Rex Grossman lays another egg (which is not a stretch at all) the Seahawks and their makeshift secondary will be done for the year by Sunday evening. LOSS

BEST BET: Eagles (+5) over Saints WIN

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Top Five Complaints About The New Media

We live in the internet age, and as a consequence, we demand 24/7, instantaneous news coverage. But where speed is paramount, certain things are sacrificed. Sadly, the first to go are usually proofreading and fact-checking.

1. Typos in the crawl
Anyone who watches CNN, FoxNews, or MSNBC (okay, nobody really watches MSNBC) is well aware of the quick-hit sentence-long summaries of news stories that scrolls across the bottom of the screen. In the haste to get items posted onto the crawl, typographical errors are made. But would it kill the news networks to have someone watching the feed, looking for typos, and notifying the person with the computer if a mistake is made.

2. Broken links on websites
Nothing frustrates me more than clicking on a hyperlink on cnn.com or foxnews.com, thinking that I'm going to read about troop escalation in Iraq, only to be sent to a page discussing Britney Spears' sudden disdain for underwear. The news networks need to have someone whose full-time job is surfing the internet (I'll volunteer!), letting the computer jockeys know when they made mistakes so that they are corrected as soon as possible.

3. Misleading headlines
Misleading headlines for news articles are no new phenomenon. Newspapers with a certain political bias (fringe publications, of course, since no mainstream broadsheet would ever do something like that) choose their words carefully when writing headlines, knowing that many people get their news straight from the headline without reading the article. In the modern age, while these misdirections may still be a result of bias, I also believe they are largely the product of deadline-pressured editors failing to read the actual article.

4. Incorrect facts
I understand that when you need to get your news story out within minutes, thorough fact-checking might not be possible. You need to go with what you have. But certain fact-checking can be accomplished in the matter of seconds. For example, during the August airline security scare, various news outlets reported either that all food was banned from passing through security checkpoints, or that passengers would be forced to taste the food that they sought to brought through. A quick visit to the TSA website and a read-through of their press release would have disproved both allegations.

5. No accountability for mistakes
When you print a newspaper, your article has been memorialized in print for all time. If you make an error, you print a correction the next day. When you run a news website, you can keep revising your articles and uploading the most recent version to the site. Unless someone's computer has happened to cache the previous version, it is lost to society for all time. If you make a mistake, there is no need to admit it. You can just sweep it under the rug by correcting the facts in the new article and denying that the old article ever existed.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Airport Insecurity

Countless ounces of ink (though no more than three ounces at a time) have been wasted criticizing the stopgap window-dressing methods of airline security. I do tend to agree with all the criticism out there, believing that air travel is a calculated risk and the current security measures exceed the risk-reward efficiency threshold. Proper counterterrorism intelligence and a heightened state of vigilance by airline personnel can do basically the same thing as Gestapo-style strip searches, but with much less hassle.

But leaving to the side whether the rules, as they are presently conceived, make sense, I wish to highlight some nonsensical inconsistencies between Transportation Security Administration policies and those employed by airport security agencies in the rest of the world. Soon after the current three ounce restrictions on the size of carry-on liquid containers was approved, the TSA bumped up the limit to 3.4 ounces, so that the 100ml standard used by countries that have gotten with the program and adopted the metric system (i.e. the rest of the civilized world) would be acceptable in the USA. But while the TSA opted to round up, the EU security agencies rounded down. So, while your 3.39 ounce bottle of face wash passes muster in the USA, it would be confiscated in the EU. (To complicate matters, the imperial fluid ounce still in use in the UK, concurrently with the metric system, is slightly larger than the American fluid ounce.)

The rules for duty-free alcohol are even more convaluted. When you fly from the USA to Europe, you can carry-on duty free alcohol (which is delivered to the plane as you board, since American airports do not have sterile international departure zones). But if you try to connect within the EU, the alcohol will be confiscated when you reclear security. In Europe, they have come up with the novel idea that you don't claim your luggage until you reach your final destination, so you don't even have the option to stash the booze in your checked luggage before you catch your next flight. When you fly within the EU, duty-free booze you purchase is sealed in a tamper-proof bag, so that the authorities can know your Smirnoff vodka is no Molotov cocktail. But the US does not recognize the EU's tamper-proof bags, and further requires that duty-free purchased at the transatlantic departure airport be delivered to the gate -- a measure otherwise unnecessary in European airports, since they have a passport controlled departures area. Then, when you get back to the USA, you must put that liquor in your checked luggage since it is considered contraband as a carry-on. I don't even know what other developed countries require these days (Canada tends to follow the USA, Japan does its own thing, Israel laughs at the entire carnival).

We all know that when it comes to foreign relations, the USA government is extremely pigheaded and will not depart from their predetermined course of action no matter how much sense it might make. What drives me even more nuts than the nonsensical rules in general are the nonsensical minute differences in policies between nations and the unwillingness to set up a standardized international system. An internationally-recognized tamper-proof bag for purchased liquids and a common metric volume limit for liquids hardly seem like unreasonable requests. We live in a global society and international travel is more accessible than ever. Ridiculous and variable transportation security policies are an unnecessary roadblock.

Monday, January 08, 2007

You're Fired!

Sunday night saw the premiere of the new installment of NBC's The Apprentice. While in large part it's the same old show, Donald Trump and company have made several changes, which may or may not for the better, but certainly serve to mix things up. The largest change is the venue. After six seasons on the Urban Survivor island of Manhattan, The Donald has moved his operation to Los Angeles, constructing a boardroom in some rent-a-mansion in the Hollywood Hills.


Perhaps the next most notable change comes from Trump's apparent desire to screw with the candidates. While the winning team each week gets to live in the rent-a-mansion (albeit in a communal bedroom), with a swimming pool perfect for weekly cheesecake shots, the losers are forced to live outdoors in tents and use outhouses and beach-type showers. Additionally, winning project managers get to remain in the position until they lose, as well as assist Trump in the boardroom when he fires someone from the losing team. All these bonuses serve to enhance the winning's teams chances to succeed by putting the losers at a triple handicap. We'll see if the combination of inferior sleeping arrangements and rules that keep successful candidates in positions of power serve to prevent underdog teams from ever turning the tables.

But the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Donald is as smarmy as ever and is just as willing to harp on some insignificant statement made in the boardroom and blow it way out of proportion. The show has more than its share of nauseating camera shots of The Donald with his trophy wife and newborn baby. He has also continued to use his daughter Ivanka (you know, the one he said he'd have sex with, if she weren't his daughter) as a boardroom assistant, especially since she makes for a continuing slap in the face at Martha Stewart, whose own daughter was a strong, silent type, who didn't exactly make for compelling television in the forgettable Apprentice spinoff.

Another holdover from prior seasons is the casting of a contestant in the Omarosa-Stacie J.-Danny-Brent Memorial Outcast/Clown Role. This time around, the spot was filled by sartorially-challenged Deval Patrick lookalike (and soundalike) Martin. While in past seasons, Trump has let the clown stick around for two weeks, this time around, Trump actually chose a qualified candidate over good television, delivering those famous two words that remain the same whether you're on the left coast or the right -- you're fired.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Sports Championship Trivia

1. Which North American metropolitan areas have at least one franchise in each of the four major sports leagues? (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL)

2. Which metro area with at least one franchise in each of the four major sports leagues has gone the longest time without a championship?

3. Which metro area with at least three major league franchises has gone the longest time without a championship?

4. In each of the four major leagues, which franchise has gone the longest time since its last championship?

5. In each of the four major league sports, which franchise has been in existence for the longest time without winning any championships?

6. Which city with at least one franchise in all four of the major league sports has gone the longest time without either gaining or losing a team?

7. What is the largest North American city by population that does not have a franchise in any of the four major league sports?

Click on "Comments" for the answers.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Viva Old Las Vegas!

I had a few extra days to kill between New Year's and the start of my classes, so naturally, I hopped a plane for a quick trip to Las Vegas. I started going to Vegas shortly after my 21st birthday in 2001 and I've been there, on average, twice a year since. During the course of my regular visits, I've noted a major change in way Vegas operates, and in my opinion, it hasn't been for the better.

Back in 2001, the primary focus of Las Vegas was the gambling. All the other products offered by the casinos -- hotel rooms, dining, cocktails, shows, etc. -- existed to support the gambling. Common logic was that you'd lure people into the casino with a cheap buffet or an inexpensive afternoon cabaret show, and when the customers would make their way to the back of the casino (where the attraction is inevitably located), they would drop a few bucks on the tables or the slots. Now, however, while the gambling might not be marginalized, it has at least been deemphasized. Casinos have discovered that they can actually make money off these ancillary activities. As a result, these loss-leaders have nearly doubled their prices in order to become profit centers. Furthermore, Vegas experiences the strange phenomenon that the more things cost, the more people want to pay for it. When you part with your money to gamble, at least you have a chance to make it back.

Fortunately, I have found the antidote to this approach. I go to Vegas for low-stakes table games, cheap buffers, and an escape from reality where I don't feel self-conscious. I don't give a crap about which version of Cirque du Soleil is playing at whatever casino and I'm not going to drop a c-note to go watch it. I love the spectacle, but I don't care about being seen at the swankest casino on the strip. And for the life of me, I cannot comprehend the attraction of waiting in long lines for the right to have a bouncer decide whether or not you're worthy of paying 20 or 30 bucks to have the pleasure of listening to excessively loud hip hop music and purchasing overpriced drinks in an ultralounge. There isn't much on the Strip that caters to my desires, but if you get off the Strip, Old Vegas is alive and well.

Sure, these off-strip casinos might not be as nice and their patrons tend to be the local bluehairs, but they're not bad. At a place like the Gold Coast, you can get a $20 room and a $6.49 breakfast buffet. Not only do they have the same table games and the same slots as the big casinos, their rules and payouts tend to more favorable than the big casinos. A hundred bucks in winnings from the Gold Coast can buy the exact same thing as a hundred bucks in winnings from the MGM Grand. The cheap Vegas trip does still exist -- you just need to look a little bit harder for it.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Playing The Spread, Wild Card Weekend

It's time for one of my favorite annual traditions. This weekend and next weekend, we will be treated to four nationally televised games involving the elite teams of the NFL. Accordingly, the networks will have their top announcers covering the playoff battles. CBS will have Jim Nantz and Phil Simms, Fox will have Joe Buck and Troy Aikman, NBC will feature Al Michaels and John Madden, along with a second crew captained by Tom Hammond.

Yep, that's the same Tom Hammond who covers horse racing and figure skating for NBC, the same Tom Hammond that hasn't done play-by-play for an professional football game since 1997 (Arena League notwithstanding). You see, the current television contract gives the network that broadcasts the premier primetime game the right to carry both Saturday games for Wild Card Weekend. When ABC had the contract for Monday Night Football, they could easily pull the crew from cable partner ESPN's telecasts. But NBC has no such cable partner that covers games, so they are forced to jimmyrig a crew with an announcer that covers others sports, a color commentator borrowed from the pregame show (Cris Collinsworth), and a sideline reported from the Patriots' 5th Quarter show that airs on local television here in Boston (Bob Neumeier).

NBC certainly deserves a piece of the playoff pie, but why must the NFL insist on this nonsensical arrangement where a network that has broadcasted all season with one crew suddenly must televise two consecutive games? The NFL should rearrange the schedule, giving NBC either wild card games on successive days, or one wild card game along with one divisional playoff game. That way, fans can get games covered by crews that have been doing the job all season long. On the bright side, however, at least they didn't hire Bryant Gumbel.

The following picks are for entertainment purposes only and should not be the basis for any actual cash wagers.

Last week: 12-4
Season to date: 129-120-7
Best bets: 8-9
Final Eliminator: 14-3 (Streak: W 1)

Jets (+8.5) over Patriots
I really do think that the Pats will win this game. There's no way that Bill Belichick will let his former protege outdo him twice in one season (assuming he even acknowledges his existence). But this game is still one of those gritty AFC East battles, which I predict will end up with a very close final score. LOSS

Chiefs (+7) over Colts
It's January and Peyton Manning is starting at quarterback. 'Nuff said. LOSS

Cowboys (+2.5) over Seahawks
Yikes. The difficult part of picking a winner for this game is the fact that there has to be a winner. Dallas has looked downright pathetic since clinching a playoff berth, but since the Seahawks will be pulling people in off the street to fill out their secondary (since that meaningless win over Tampa Bay was so important), the Cowboys might actually be able to torch them with their passing game -- at least if Terrell Owens manages to hang onto the ball. WIN

Eagles (-7) over Giants
My selection for this game is based entirely on the quarterback's last name. Hell, if Joe Montana legally changed his last name to Manning just before Super Bowl XXIV, I would have picked against him as well. LOSS

BEST BET: Eagles (-7) over Giants LOSS

Monday, January 01, 2007

It's A Magical New Year!

It's A Magical World wishes all of you out there a very happy 2007! My thoughts on the new year are best expressed by re-running the following comic strip (which, I'm sure you'll gather, if you didn't already know, was the inspiration for this blog in the first place). May 2007 be the best year yet!