Sox Win Record Exhibition

Can you imagine? Sox win (not surprising) in front of 115,000 fans.
The league's getting their money's worth out of Red Sox Nation and the cultural phenomenon the organization invokes.

What a Day!

My mom and her friend, Tony, came to visit yesterday. Kim and I met Eric, my older brother, at 10:30am at Penn Station. He was flying solo because, unfortunately, Jenn's been pretty sick lately and couldn't make it out. Mom and Tony arrived around 11:15am. Since they were leaving at 7pm, we had only a matter of hours to enjoy each other's company (we hadn't seen each other since Christmas) and see New York. With what little time we had available, however, we managed to do the following:
1.) Empire Diner for brunch.

Having met at a bustling Penn Station, we thought it best to start by settling down and getting a bite to eat. With that in mind, I'd read about the Empire Diner, a 1950's-style restaurant with a great menu, and we thought to walk to it (22nd St. and 10th Ave.). It was a beautiful day, a nice way to stretch our legs, and a cozy dining experience. The menu was everything we'd hoped for, we beat the rush (you'll note the line extends well out the door), and the food was pretty good. I enjoyed my French Toast (slices of bagget, dipped in Haggen Dazs vanilla, egg, and cinnamon) served with sliced almonds and bananas. I liked Kim's sizebale cheddar and bacon omelette served with "Empire chips," as well. The prices weren't "dirt-cheap," but also weren't considerably more; Kim's omelette was $12 and my dish was $10. I'd go back again, thought the service was great, and really enjoyed the company of friends and family.

2.) Rockefeller Center.
From the diner, we headed up to Rockefeller Center (5th Ave. to 7th Ave. btwn. 47th and 51st Streets). There was a bit of a hurry to make the subway, but that was all part of the fun.

We started by checking out the Plaze, replete with active ice skating rink, before heading up to the Observation Deck.


3.) "Top of the Rock" Observation Deck.
I've spoken about this on earlier blogs ("Top of the Rock" and "Central Park from the Top of the Rock"), but it was just as enjoyable this time. Eric pointed out the Statue of Liberty to Mom, there was the ever-confounding "Concrete Jungle," more Central Park, and time for Mom and Kim to enjoy the view and each other's company.




4.) The Metropolitan Museum of Art's Balcony Cafe.
After all the walking, trains, etc., Mom was ready for a glass of wine. So, we were off to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's cafe. We passed by St. Patrick's Cathedral, and were but a few of many tourists who witnessed the beginning of a wedding, and then continued to the Met.


5.) The "Temple of Dendur" Exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Following the refreshments and snacks, we only a matter of hours before the train would be heading back out of town. We hurriedly visited the Temple of Dendur and then went back towards downtown Manhattan.



Kim and my Mom really seemed to enjoy themselves throughout.

6.) Appetizers and drinks at Mustang Sally's before heading back out of town.

Finally, we settled in for another cocktail and some appetizers. It was nice to come together, again, and enjoy good company and good food. This particular sports bar/restaurant has come to be one of our (Kim and I) favorites; it's very close to Madison Square Garden (located on 7th Ave. between 28th and 29th Sts.) , has classic pub food, and cold beer, all at decent prices.

Kicked in the Nuts

These are two of my favorite YouTube videos of all time and now I get to share them with the world. Yes!
Enjoy them both, particularly when the second one gets to 1:28.

Sign of Eden or Apocalypse?

I don't think Tom Hanks as symbologist "Robert Langdon" in The DaVinci Code had the cryptological ability to decipher what this means, but I have to post it becuase I highly doubt Julio Lugo will ever lead Major League Baseball in Batting Average again, ever, again, ever.

LeBron's Vogue Cover

Honestly, who has the time for this? Big news was being made of the fact that LeBron James was going to be the second male (I think) and first black male on the cover of Vogue. Now that the cover's been released, there's new controversy.

The attention now centers around whether or not this is a controversial photograph. Is it depicting LeBron James as "King Kong clutching Fay Wray," thereby promoting black men as bestial? Or does it suggest there's a violent side to LeBron, and black men, regardless of whether or not you think he looks like King Kong? Maybe it's just an image that accurately depicts these two individuals; LeBron is powerful and HUGE while Gisele is a supermodel and, not suprisingly, beautiful. That's exactly what the photo shows, right?
I only mention this becuase I've already spoken to the issue of sensitivity and hyper-sensitivity in "Chelsea's Vitriol" and yes, it did occur to me that perhaps I was being too sensitive and critical about the whole thing. But now here I am wondering if I should be more offended by this Vogue cover. I feel "okay" with it. But should I? or should I be more sensitive?
For more on this, I found Jason Whitlock's article "Am I supposed to be mad about LeBron?" (and quoted it above). It didn't do much for me, but if you're interested, check out: http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7955740/Am-I-supposed-to-be-mad-about-LeBron?MSNHPHCP&GT1=39002.

Chelsea's Vitriol

What follows is an excerpt from one of Chelsea Clinton's college visits while out on the campaign trail for her mother's presidential bid. According to NBC's Lauren Appelbaum, Chelsea was asked by a (male) student if "...her mother's credibility had been hurt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal...." While I appreciate Chelsea's inclination to protect her family and its privacy, I'm not sure her response is appropriate. Please watch.

Here's the link where you can find the original article I read to discover this event. It offers a brief look at the aftermath.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/807581.aspx?GT1=43001

Chelsea's response, which was met with applause by the crowd, seems unappealing because the question is legitimate; does the public view Hillary as strong, or weak, because of her response to the Lewinsky scandal? This will, or at least should, impact what we might expect from voters and inform pundits as to what we might expect as the election continues. The question was also an opportunity for Chelsea to highlight her mother's strength and character, rather than something that can only be perceived as an attack on her family. Of course, it's also ironic that the question was posited to a member of one of America's most public families, but public by their own choice (as mom and dad don't have to pursue public office); this fact makes it more difficult to respect Chelsea playing the right-to-privacy "card."

It's also interesting there's such public support for Chelsea's brusque rebuttal. In case you missed it, one reader comment posted beneath the article was this one:






And again, while I understand the sensitivity that might have prompted such a vitriolic response, I don't think it was appropriate in this particular case. Was the person who asked the question a "worm," for example, that deserved to be "put...in his place" or "shut...up?" I don't think so.

But we can hardly be surprised. Not only did Chelsea receive public support at the time of the incident and through online supporters such as I've exemplified above, but there are a lot of people that agree with her remark. My concern is that what's prompted her response and much of the public's support is this country's general aversion to asking difficult questions. There are reports, for example, that only 30% of eligible voters discuss politics. And we all know why this is; we consider it rude to talk about religion and politics because, as the saying goes, "You never know who you're gonna offend." So how can we act appropriately if we're isolated in the thoughts and thinking leading up to that action. I mean, the question that prompted Chelsea's response was, basically: Is your mother a strong person and strong enough to be president? Again, connotation certainly got in the way of more clearly perceiving the question as it might have been intended, but can we be so sure the inquisitor is a "worm?" And if they are, is it because of the question or the fact that it was about politics?

Sox Split; Haa'den Throws Pissah

Oh my God. This devil child, Rich Harden, busted up the Sox lineup with some wicked junk. His fastball was in the mid-90's; he had a brutal change up; he struck out 9 in only 6 innings. As if that wasn't enough, this advertisement alleges he even speaks "fluent Canadian." I didn't even know Canada had a language, that's how nasty this guy is. If I ever see him walking down the street, I'm crossing over to the other sidewalk.

Was it worth getting up at 6am to watch? No. But since I'm living in NYC and can't see most Sox games, or even order NESN, I'll grow to appreciate this more. Red Sox, good luck on the ten hr. flight back to the States.

Red Sox Dominate MLB Statistical Leaders

This is even more impressive if you can forget the fact that, at the time this was posted, the Red Sox and A's were the only teams to have played during the official "2008 Regular Season."

Brandon Moss

In spite of the fact that Manny Ramirez got the "Hero Interview," because of his 4RBIs, including two in the top of the 10th, the Sox would not have made it into extra innings if it weren't for Brandon Moss's 9th inning, bases empty, one out, homerun. That made it two RBIs on the day for Moss, a last minute addition to the line up. He filled in for JD Drew, who was scratched for tightness in the back.

Christmas Comes Early for Sox Fans!

What an amazing morning! Last night, I went to bed feeling as though it was Christmas Eve. I woke up every hour on the hour. As I arose at 5:45am, filled with optimism and hope, I could not have conceived of the disappointment I was to discover. That's exactly what happened, though, when I discovered that ESPN2 (and only a couple other channels) were not coming in. I continued to search for the game, as panic grew, until finally, I found it on NESN at the top of the 8th inning (it normally doesn't come in, wasn't coming in earlier, and is allegedgly "unavailable" in the NYC area). In any event, I was able to watch the last three innings, including the 10th inning, and see the Red Sox come-from-behind in the most dramatic fashion.
Meanwhile, Japan seemed to do a wonderful job in the role of host. Though less than unbiased (as they have an enormous Red Sox fan base), they played "Sweet Caroline," brough Papelbon out to Dropkick Murphy's "Shipping up to Boston," and fervently cheered for the Sox throughout the contest. It was a wonderful start to a new year! Thank you, Santa.

"Stop Snitchin'"

One of the most amazing things about being involved in Education is its proximity to Community. It is true we all live within one, and very near others, but within our nation's schools, there is the opportunity to shape them in ways I believe to be somewhat less common in the rest of the world. Furthermore, there is something unique about these communities in that they are supposed to help regenerate and improve societal and global communities.
With all that said, I've only just begun looking into one particular component of communities: the idea of being a "Snitch." This is an issue seen throughout society in day to day activities and public debate; in these forms it normally includes racism, dis/trusting police, and a learned code of ethics. Certainly, these are complicated issues with enumerable dynamics. To that end, I found work by CNN's Anderson Cooper to be useful. I started by viewing a segment he had done for 60 Minutes entitled "Stop Snitchin.'" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/60minutes/main2704565.shtml when this page loads, click on the video that appears in the viewer-it should be the story from 60 Minutes and should run about 13:45) While I found it to be a helpful start, it did offer a broader scope than I'd hoped to discover. But there was a specific portion that seemed both particularly poignant and disconcerting. In the following video, which is supremely brief, footage is concentrated to Anderson Cooper's interview with Rapper Cam'ron. The prolific hip-hop star explains that he would never cooperate with police, not even if he knew a serial killer was living next door to him. He offers explanations as to why, and there is an element of reasoning to parts of his thinking, but it does little to assuage the discomfort rendered by his emphatic discouragement of helping law enforcement officials. Discouragement that, experts say, helps explain why a growing number of murderers, rapists, and other criminals are getting away with their crimes.

The video, and Cooper's longer report, clearly attentuates any merit of the "Stop Snitchin'" campaign. But I felt my research was too biased and continued further to discover some very thoughtful remarks from entrepreneur, record producer, and social reformer Russell Simmons. In the video that follows, he strengthens the "Stop Snitchin'" campaign, which he also points out he does not personally endorse, by pointing out that much of the outrage over this campaign and Cam'ron's comments are expressions of people, "...blaming the messenger for the message. They're trying to break the mirror for what they're reflecting." He points to the fact that this is only one particular message from the hip-hop community and audience members need to be clear they can discern between what is said and the truth it expresses. In other words, though it may be hard for some to understand why anyone would support a movement to stop people from assisting police, we should not overlook the possibility that there might be some who feel oppressed by a system or circumstance and view the police force as an extension of that condition. As Simmons explains it, there are some who think that "...the police seem like they're holding the system up and the system is holding you down." I found the first five minutes of this video especially illuminating.

Cooper goes on to examine other issues related to the perception of law enforcement officials, but the value of Simmons' sentiment seems an important part of the quid pro quo I felt it necessary to undertake in order to better understand the far-reaching issue of what it means to be a "Snitch."
Although there were other influences that have continued to shape my journey to better understanding this issue, not the least of which is Geoffrey Canada's work, it still seems an interesting conundrum. Perhaps it's easier to examine these implications within a particular setting, such as a school. Let's say, for example, one student has stolen another's iPod. Let's also say this happened in the boys' locker room. Finally, let's assign these roles:
Student T (for Thief) took the iPod,
Student W (for Witness) saw or otherwise knows for certain that Student T did this,
Student V (for Victim) is the one that had the iPod stolen from their locker, and
Teacher is the person trying to find out who is responsible for the stolen iPod.
From here, there are a number of important questions we can ask. Many will also help to inform us more about what it means to be a "Snitch."

We must start exploring the paradigm somewhere, so let's start at the beginning. Student V's iPod has been stolen. He tells Teacher, who begins to investigate. As part of the investigation, Teacher asks Student W if they know anything about the matter. Perhaps the question is posed something like this:
Teacher: "I've heard that a student's iPod was stolen and I'm trying to figure out what happened. Do you know anything about this?"
Already, a number of assumptions have been made: that discovery would be so simple, that Student W might know something (as opposed to asking other students), and that Student W will cooperate. Each of these assumptions helps to restrict and inform the possible outcomes. For example, was Student W asked because Teacher believes Student W can be of help? or is Student W a suspect or someone who might be tangentially involved? Was Student W asked right away or after a considerable population had already been interviewed? For now, let's ignore these considerations. I recommend this measure for the sake of expediency and focus, rather than pomp and presumption.
In order to continue this suspension of disbelief, let's assume that Student W hasn't yet answered. In fact, the actual answer might seem of little consequence compared to the myriad of possibile responses and reasons for the selection of an individual answer.
Once Teacher has asked the question, Student W has a lot to consider. In most cases, even those whereby Teacher and Student W have a strong rapport, it seems irresponsible to suppose Student W might produce an anomylous act. In other words, it seems unlikely that the person asking the question will measurably effect the content of Student W's response; it's more likely, I would argue, Student W's response will be the result of long-term social conditioning. If we can agree to that likelihood, then the response does not matter as much as the student's paradigms that are producing the response.
Again, the question has been asked and we still don't have a response from Student W. The student, meanwhile, is faced with the dilemma of whether or not they should "snitch." Regardless of Student W's personal feelings towards snitching, it will come into consideration because:

• if the students tells the truth and unveils Student T's identity, Student W may face scrutiny from peers because Student W snitched, or
• if the student lies, or otherwise preserves Student T's anonymity, Student W has surrendered their private ability to control the situation to the voice of the public and scrutiny Student W might face from his own peers.

So if Student W's response is irrelevant, we must focus on the circumstances that put Student W in peril either way (because they might be scrutinized or because they're learning to make themself subservient to the masses). The circumstances, I believe, must include the following questions:

• Why would I not tell the truth?
• Who am I helping? How do I know what I'm doing is truly "helpful?" What do I mean by "help?"
• How do I know I'm helping the person I am keeping anonymous?
• Who am I hurting? What do I mean by "hurt?"
• Is this an interaction I control or is my voice incomparable to the will of the masses? If I relent that my own personal will is irrelevant (assuming it's different than that of the group), how do I know the will of the group is moral? Is morality my aim or is this about something else?
• What is this about? What's the point?
• If I'm trying to do the right thing, what do I mean by "right" and what makes something so?
• What am I going to do? Why am I going to do it? Does it matter (the action and/or the reasoning)?

Though terribly extensive, this enumeration has some deeply compelling questions. To conceptualize "Snitchin'" as a bad thing, we must believe some negative outcome results from this behavior. Though one might be able to make that argument in broad instances, as considered by Canada, Cooper, Simmons, and Cam'ron, it seems schools are a less dynamic scenario. In other words, we have to ask what the disadvantage is to Student W telling Teacher who stole the iPod.
Although there’s certainly the unequal distribution of power, which is a concern when such a resource might be abused but is, hopefully, not a fear within schools, this seems too inherent within the structure of schools to satisfactorily justify a student protecting someone’s criminal behavior. Even if we were to suggest it’s disadvantageous to empower school faculty and staff, this is a case whereby we must take relevance into account and focus, more closely, on which is a greater evil: to empower school faculty and staff or protect the wrongdoer. At a most fundamental level, we can at least agree that Teacher should be trying to do “the right thing” by discovering who stole Student V’s iPod. However, it seems hard to believe Student T is doing “the right thing” by stealing a peer’s property.
Again, there’s certainly the potential that Teacher will abuse the power and knowledge in some way, but based on the limited information we have, we do not know there will be a negative outcome. This juxtaposes Student T’s act which is inherently bad. If all this is true, then it seems inappropriate for Student W to withhold information from Teacher as that act, most likely, will only support the greater evil. If for no other reason than that, I would argue, Student W should confess what they know; turn in Student T.

If this is reasonable, and perhaps even agreeable, then what does it tell us about a "Snitch?" By all appearances, a Snitch seems to be someone who refuses to protect the insipient transgressor, the acrimonious, and the nihilist. The Snitch is not someone who lives by what Cam'ron calls a "code of ethics," but in spite of it; someone who does the right thing regardless of tenuous diatribe positing as reason, truth, and morality. The Snitch is someone who seeks the greater good or, at least, the lesser harm. The Snitch, therefore, is someone far less dispicable than the wrongdoer but is an individual in an undesirable situation that does the right thing anyway. Far from culpable, this is someone we might praise.

For now, I need to step back from this line of inquiry, but hope this has been of some value to you, the Reader. I welcome any comments, insights, or other recommended resources I might consult.

Before I leave it, however, I should couch this hypothetical scenario in the harsh reality that there are very real consequences to the decisions we all make. There are deep ramifications for children in schools, particularly. I've attached a link to an article from March 24th's NY Times which speaks to a child that alleges he was consistently beaten up by classmates over an extended period of time and without support from his school's administration. We all know how tragic the results of such inappropriate abuses can be for both the individual and the community. (The link is: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/24land.html?_r=1&ex=1364097600&en=a959e88983771fc2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin).

Here's another link, added on March 28th, that speaks to bullying and gossip: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27gossip.html?_r=1&ex=1364356800&en=20cb0fa24adc0dbb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin.

Sound the Alarm! A Sign of Things to Come

By this time tomorrow, the Red Sox will have already won their season-opener and you'll have gotten up at 6am EST to watch it for yourself. Hurrah!
And, for those of you trying to figure out when you'll be able to watch your beloved Red Sox, I've compiled a list of nationally televised games (for those of you not lucky enough to get NESN). Anyways, enjoy and Go Sox!

Sat. April 12 @3:55pm. Red Sox v. Yankees from Fenway Park. Fox.
Sun. Apr. 13 @1:35pm. Red Sox v. Yankees from Fenway Park. ESPN.
Mon. Apr. 14 @7:05pm. Red Sox at Indians from Jacobs Field. ESPN.

Mon. May 5 @7:05pm. Red Sox at Tigers from Comerica Park. ESPN.
Sun. May 11 @8:05pm. Red Sox at Twins from the Metrodome. ESPN.
Mon. May 12 @7:05. Red Sox at Twins from the Metrodome. ESPN.
Sat. May 17 @3:55pm. Red Sox v. Brewers from Fenway Park. Fox.

Sat. June 7 @3:55pm. Red Sox v. Mariners from Fenway Park. Fox.
Sat. June 14 @3:55pm. Red Sox at Reds from the Great American Ball Park. Fox.
Mon. June 16 @7:05pm. Red Sox at Phillies from Citizens Bank Park. ESPN.
Sat. June 21 @3:55pm. Red Sox v. Cardinals from Fenway Park. Fox.

Sat. July 5 @3:55pm. Red Sox at Yankees from Yankee Stadium. Fox.
Mon. July 7 @ 7:05pm. Red Sox v. Twins from Fenway Park. ESPN.
Sat. July 19 @3:55pm. Red Sox at Angels from Angel Stadium. Fox.
Sat. July 26 @3:55pm. Red Sox v. Yankees from Fenway Park. Fox.
Mon. July 28 @7:05pm. Red Sox v. Angels from Fenway Park. ESPN.

Mon. Aug. 4 @8:10pm. Red Sox at Royals from Kauffman Stadium. ESPN.

Fri. Sept. 26 @7:05. Red Sox v. Yankees from Fenway Park. ESPN.

Scary Times

I don't know if you heard about this, but here's a link to a short article about an MIT student who thought it would be a good idea to walk through Logan International Airport with a "blinking circuit board" attached to her shirt (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080322/NEWS/803220344/-1/rss36). It looked like the circuit board for a bomb she appeared to be wearing.
Nevermind that she and her lawyer are arguing it was her "First Amendment right to express herself" or that there was clearly "no evidence of criminal intent," I'm wondering what would possess her to think about this in the first place. I mean, if she lost a bet, I might be a little more understanding, but you're talking about someone who thought about this, devised the plan, probably constructed the circuit board herself, and then carried out these designs.
Can you imagine? She headed out to Logan and must have asked herself, "Am I forgetting anything? Circuit board. Duct tape. Extra batteries. Toll money. Nope, I guess I have everything."
As for the judge not throwing out the case, I have to say I'm relieved to hear the Hon. Paul Mahoney is taking this so seriously. As an educator, I'm weary of people doing things strictly for the sake of gathering attention. It's true I dabble in the histrionics with some of my posts, pics, and text, but I believe, along with the eccentricities, I'm trying to make a point that might be of some value. In the aforementioned case of this MIT student, I'm afraid I'm missing her point, assuming there was one. How is what she did, for example, different than a kid displaying a gun at school? only later for it to be discovered it was a water gun? Is it different than putting a swastika in a public bathroom and then defending it by suggesting you didn't mean it to be understood with the malicious connotation of the Third Reich, but with the benevolence of Sanskrit and Neolithic Indian intent?
My concern is not only that this young person is sadly claiming to be misunderstood, but that she's doing so after so clearly jeopardizing countless individuals' senses of safety and security. We're talking about someone who has given us every reason to believe she's wearing a bomb as she's walking beside us in public. The victims here are people who were, simply, going about their daily lives in ways that neither impeded or threatened those around them. This antagonist, however, is a recklessly immature young person that needs to understand the significance of individual decisions and how they affect the community in ways that, perhaps, only the Hon. Paul Mahoney can sufficiently elucidate.

Couple Things on My Mind

First of all, this picture is from cafepress.com and struck me as being quite unique. If anyone's heard the term "Masshole" and understood it to be some kind of perverse compliment, you might enjoy the site (http://www.cafepress.com/buy/massachusetts). Also, I have to admit my NCAA bracket is completely devistated. In spite of picking the entire "East" bracket correctly, so far, I only picked four of the remaining twelve "Sweet Sixteen" teams correctly. Wisconsin? 'Nova? Davidson? Western Kentucky?!?! Who comes up with this stuff?
ESPN had more than 3 million brackets registered on their website. Only 2 have all 16 "Sweet Sixteen" teams correct. By the way, do you know what the "M" in Masacchusetts is for? How do 3 million people try something and only 2 people get half way through it? And that isn't to say that either of those two people has their entire bracket correct: only that they have the Sweet Sixteen correct. Wow. Exactly how many lead paint chips does it take to conceive of the possibility that Stanford, Xavier, and West Virginia would beat Connecticut, Purdue, and Duke to make it to the third round of "the Big Dance?" More importantly, I understand this is the advantage to sucking down paint chips like they were Frosted Flakes, but what's the trade off, right?
Hey, keep in mind I'm the guy with the laughable bracket and 50% of the Sweet Sixteen's participants. Congrats to anyone who did better.

Happy Easter, Red Sox!

There's a lot going on right now, but let me start by wishing everyone a Happy Easter. However, I'm presently most excited about the fact that the Red Sox on are national television both Tuesday and Wednesday. Living in New York, not only do I not get to see the Sox on television very often, I can't even purchase NESN (New England Sports Network) because it's "unavailable" in this area. I can put those worries aside, though, on Tuesday and Wednesday because the Sox are being televised live on ESPN2 from the Tokyo Dome (Japan) as they open their season by taking on the Oakland A's. Each day, the broadcast starts at 6am and will be re-aired at 2pm. I haven't decided when I'll be watching, but am seriously considering catching the live game so I can do other work the rest of the day.
Besides Easter and the Red Sox, Kim's still fighting her cold and seems to feel even worse than yesterday, while I'm shaking off the final remnants of my flu. I have the upcoming week off, like last week, thanks to my school's break, but I have a couple papers I need to do for grad school and, along with some grading paperwork to complete for my job. Overall, this break's been great, though it would have been nice to have better health for its entirety. But how can I complain?
Finally, not only do I have the second half of my vacation coming up, my mom's coming into NYC to visit on March 29th. What a nice way to end my break!

Down and Out

So I have this theory that one's body fights off sickness until it has the time to become sick and recover. Of course, this isn't a perfect theory, but I'm convinced there's an element of truth to it. For example, I had a very difficult month. From Feb. 15th through March 14th, I had at least one significant deadline per week. Then, family came into town on March 15th. That was enough motivation for me to continue functioning. As soon as they left, though, I woke up the very next morning with a sore threat, congested sinuses, and an upset stomach. I was sick Thursday, Friday, and much of today, Saturday. I'm only starting to feel better now. Please consult the photo of Kim, who is just coming down with the cold, to get a sense of how I've felt the last couple days. You'll note that in the first picture, she's asleep while sitting upright on the couch. She also has three pillows in her arms. In the second picture, she's up to four pillows, and is smiling for some unbeknown reason (probably because we simply feel we're supposed to smile when someone points a camera at us). Anyways, I hope she'll start to feel better by early next week, but will keep you posted either way.

Two More Pics from Met Museum

These images are taken from the following galleries at the Met: "Temple of Dendur" and "Arms and Armor."

Balcony Cafe

Jeff and I entered the Met (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) and immediately made our way to the Balcony Cafe. Not only was it a great perch to people-watch, as it overlooks the Main Hall, but it was a wonderful place to relax and enjoy a chilled refreshment.

World's Shyest Squirrel

Having finished at the AMNH, Jeff and I headed over to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It's located directly across Central Park from the Natural History Museum and it was a nice-enough day so we decided to walk. On the way, there were a lot of signs of Spring coming. Here's an example:

Other Pics from the Amer. Mus. of Nat. Hist.

Click photos to enlarge.

Jeff Looking at Himself

I really enjoy this picture because it's a neat camera "trick," but I think there's something even more interesting about the caption. Not only is Jeff "looking at himself" in that he can see his own reflection, but this is also the only mural in the entire "Akeley Hall of African Mammals" whereby there's any hint of human existence [click photo to enlarge]. The rest of the murals and exhibits show specimens in their "natural state," if you can call it that, and so there are no humans. Animals are not scarred from having survived an attack by man, nor are there representations of trails or shelter created by man. Only in this mural do we see the distant presence of man; in the back, right hand corner of this photo, we see there's a fire. A placard explains this was an indigenous technique to ease hunting by removing plantlife that might allow shelter for game. Though indirectly intimated, it seems clear Akeley is suggesting the only impact man has on nature is a destructive one. Though I understand this might be a controversial opinion, consider the fact that he killed those animals in the hall. Were it not for his ability to destroy life, the exhibit would not be. Again, man's impact on nature is a destructive one.

Dog Urine Kills Trees

I had to take a picture of this because it was something that completely caught me off guard. It's definetly one of those times whereby you wish you had a camera and, this time, I did.

Check, Please!

When it was time to go, Eric went back to the office while Jeff and I took the subway out to the American Museum of Natural History.

Lunch at Global Kitchen

We met for lunch and had a great time at "Global Kitchen," which provides good food at good prices (about $10 for a sandwich, chips, and a drink). The restaurant's located at 52 West 52nd St. and I highly recommend it if you're looking for something quick and good in a place that offers lots of options.

One Last Day with Jeff

I started the day with plans to get Jeff and meet up with my brother, Eric, so that the three of us could go to lunch. I budgeted 30 mins. to get from Jeff's hotel to Eric's work. I forgot, however, how close the two were proximated to each other; they were neighbors on the Avenue of the Americas.

Formal Wear

Tuxedo tee-shirts aside, it can be really hard to find something apropros for those special occasions. This, however, is the clear exception. Whether you're going to a wedding, Broadway, or even just work, this is exactly what you need to look like a winner...literally. For more on the cuff links, go to:
http://www.chowdaheadz.com/boston-red-sox-cufflinks.html.

Images from the St. Patrick's Day Parade (NYC)

Time to Kill

With plenty of time before the parade, Jeff and I decided to play "Where's Waldo?" Can you find him in the picture?

Waiting to March