30,000 Year Plan, Part II

From time to time there are creeping signs that I am gaining some teeny-tiny modicum of notoriety. It used to worry me. But rather than fight it, I've incorporated it into something I call "The 30,000 Year Plan." The idea is that if I continue doing what I'm doing and work hard at it, in 30,000 years, I will be as famous as Angelina Jolie is right now.

I'm eight years into the plan, and Proof #8 that I'm on track is a letter of mine quoted and published by an ESPN columnist (under "Reader Comments" here).

He did take some liberties with the content of my letter, so here it is in its entirety:

Gregg,

Your stance that rich universities should spend more of their endowments could easily apply to the world's major religions.

How many hungry could be fed if the Pope sold off all the riches of Vatican City and put them to Christian uses? How many homeless could be sheltered if Sun Myung Moon spent money on that instead of enriching his family? How many dying could be cured if the Salvationists bought life-saving drugs instead of sending money back to London headquarters?

Religions are not required to report the size of their "endowments," so direct comparisons are difficult. But given some of the excesses seen in many of the larger religions -- as well as their much longer time in existence -- we can safely assume the big guys have lots of money. In fact, I'd suggest that their "endowments" dwarf Harvard the same way that Harvard's dwarfs smaller universities.

So given your stance on colleges/universities, can we assume that you will soon call on the leaders of major religions to begin using their accumulated capital for the betterment of human beings?

- Scott

PS. I'd like to believe the best of you, Gregg. Please don't take a pass on this question just because you are religious.

Just further proof that I existed here in the early 21st century (documented for ever and ever by Google.com, I'm sure). 29,992 years to go, Angelina -- I'm hot on your trail!

- Scott

PS. Here is the past proof that The 30,000 Year Plan is for real.

Proof #7. A picture of me dressed as the Riddler appeared at Boston.com to celebrate the release of the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight. (Note: they keep changing the list order, so you'll just have to scroll through them to find me.) My costume was one of the few home made ones, and I still own most of it, so I'm all set for Halloween every year! Until I get the mid-life beer gut.

Here are some past indications of my burgeoning fame:

Proof #6a. In February 2008, I was featured in Smith Magazine's online publicity blitz for a book of six-word memoirs. In fact, they pretty much just published an email I sent, so in a way, I was the *author* of that article -- no offense, Rachel :)

Proof #6b. And of course, the reason for the feature on me was that I had my six-word memoir and accompanying drawing published on its own page in an actual book, Not Quite What I Was Planning. I've had multiple requests for autographs and had one person tell me that if I could do 20 more drawings like the one in the book, she could get me a gallery showing. I was flattered, of course, but it took me a month to do the one they published, and as I stated in the other article, it was very tough to do.

(Side note: my father had some poetry published in a book, but he had to buy a bunch of copies to ensure his inclusion. And it became clear after the fact that the "publishers" simply collected money from a lot of people who wanted their poetry published and then distributed the book back to them. So I guess I'm one step ahead of my dad -- but just a very, very small step.)

Proof #6c. Also associated with the release of the book, there were multiple sitings of my memoir and image on the web. NPR featured it (along with others in a picture gallery) on their Talk of the Nation blog, Boing Boing had it on their page of cool new things, it was all over the blogosphere (Ward Six, Moving from Me to We, something called Wishbone Clover, even the Washington Post baseball notebook), and lastly, it was featured in a journal where I worked.

Proof #5. I had an article published on the well-respected web site, Coldhardfootballfacts.com. It detailed how bad the NFC was versus the AFC, and was the first piece that they received from one of their readers that the decided merited being published by them.

Proof #4. I've had several letters published on the Boston Globe, most notably about malpractice insurance, the current war in Iraq, and the Patriots rules about ticket resale.

Proof #3. I have been elected a delegate to the state convention of a major political party four years running. No big deal to do it once; but to be re-elected three more times and to wield some actual local clout is the big deal here.

Proof #2. At Super Bowl XXXIX, my brother and I were interviewed for an article in the local Jacksonville paper. And despite my brother's worries, I did indeed make it back alive in plenty of time to see the Patriots beat the Eagles!

Proof #1. In November of 2003, I had an article published in the Boston Globe detailing why Bill Belichick was a better head coach than Bill Parcells. Believe it or not, there was still a debate at the time. Now, of course, everyone knows that I was right -- but I'll let my words do the talking and leave the bragging to others.

I will keep you updated on how things are going with the plan. If you continue to read this blog, perhaps in fifteen-hundred years or so you will begin to see the wisdom of my slow-and-steady approach.

- Scott

Book #7: The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao

Seventh book I read since May of 2008:

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz

Geeks rejoice! This book has dozens of references and speaks to your angst growing up. In fact, it was so geeky that I missed half of the references myself. It's the story of a cursed family from the Dominican Republic, told through the eyes of many involved parties. It's fun to follow the action, and contains more than its share of (perhaps made up) history about the DR.

- Scott

What is the Globe Afraid Of?

Today's Boston Globe has an idiotic piece by right-winger Jeff Jacoby (link), in which he extolls the wonders of Sarah Palin's performance at last night's debate. In their talkback section, there are numerous people bashing Jacoby. And many of them seem surprised that the Globe writer would defend Palin, given how poorly she actually did.

I wrote a short note to that talkback section, expressing wonder that anyone would be shocked by Jacoby's article. Anyone who reads his stuff on a regular basis knows he is neither a conservative nor a Libertarian. He is a right-wing Republican suck-up, who totes the party line about 99% of the time, deviating just often enough to allow him to claim indepenence.

All of that notwithstanding, the Globe did not allow my post to go through. I tried twice, but it did not show up either time. Which got me to wondering, what is the Globe afraid of? I know it wasn't blocked for offense or language reasons -- after all, someone got through with "Dude, put down the crack pipe!"

Perhaps as a media outlet with a liberal reputation they want to make sure people continue to believe that one of their columnists is a conservative. Maybe they are afraid if people actually looked at what Jacoby writes, they'd realize that the Globe has an all-but-official employee of the Republican Party writing on their Op-Ed page. Or it might be that they don't want the motives of their columnists questions.

But for whatever reason, they seem afraid to post what I wrote. And just so it is out there for all to see anyway, here is the gist of what I wrote (I can't do it word-for-word, because I don't have the post, the Globe does):

"It surprises me that anyone on this board is shocked that Jeff Jacoby exposed himself as a Republican stooge.

He and everyone else knows that Wall Street greed is to blame for the current economic crisis, yet Jacoby recently tried to blame 15 year-old laws passed by -- surprise -- Democrats.

He claims to be a conservative, but toes the party line on the Patriot Act and spying on American citizens.

And though he sometimes pretends to be a Libertarian, he stood on the sideline cheering while George W. Bush doubled the national debt and oversaw the biggest expansion of governmental power since the 1940s.

Any regular reader of Jacoby can only come to the conclusion that he is a Republican suck-up masquerading as a journalist/columnist. He is Rush Limbaugh with better writing skills; nothing more."

Doesn't seem like it was all that terrible, does it? So maybe you can tell me what the Globe was worried about. I'm at a loss to explain it.

- Scott