The Old Blog

Long John Silber, scourge of the seven seas and *supreme-dictator-for-life of Boston University, has done it again. After blackmailing David Mugar (grandfather of Star Market developer Stephen Mugar) for $3 million and then losing it somewhere in BU’s coffers, Silber refused to give the money back when Mugar realized the mistake he had made in donating money to an institution headed by such a despicable man.
Let’s go back a few years. It’s 1993. Kurt Cobain is still alive and moping. Jurassic Park is the number one movie of the summer. And the Toronto Blue Jays are the defending World Series Champions. Mr. David Mugar receives correspondence from Mr. Silber regarding BU’s Mugar Library, which was built largely due to corporate support from Stephen Mugar, David’s grandfather. The correspondence goes a little something like this: “If you don’t donate some more money to Boston University, some other corporation might step in, donate some money, and get their name on your grandfather’s library, instead.” Forced to choose between blackmail and the honor of his grandfather, Mr. Mugar gives $3 million. Flash forward to 2000. Britney, Gladiator, and The Yankees. Realizing that BU has not used his money to expand the library as they had promised, David Mugar asks for his money back. BU says they “lost” it. They attempt to appease him by offering naming rights of different buildings around campus, but Mugar will have none of it. Enter lawyers, enter the courts, flash forward to now. After two years of increasingly belligerent faxes, Mugar threatens to sue unless BU gives the money to two of his favorite charities. BU finally acquiesces, everybody is happy. But are they?
I had the (mis)fortune to see Silber speak last week–the first time he has publicly addressed the student body en masse in a decade. A Q and A forum scheduled for two hours was shortened to one. Silber answered only seven questions in the hour, consistently avoiding responsibility or direct answers, and instead throwing out unrelated anecdotes in a pathetic attempt to pander to the crowd. He was alternately patronizing, defensive, and senile in his long-windedness. Every question ended up with Silber either blasting Boston College (whose President makes a fraction of John Silber’s salary) or denouncing student activism in all its many forms. I could go on, but the following quotes speak for themselves:**
“That gets caught up in repetition. You get drunk, you get sober, you get drunk, you get sober, you get drunk, you get sober; but you don’t get any drunker and you don’t get any more sober.”
(on student protest) “They’re not wicked, they’re not evil, they just take a lot of energy and what do they produce? I can’t tell you how superficial student activism is.” (then proceeded to compare current student opposition to 70s anti-war sentiment at BU)
(very patronizingly) “If you have connections with Santa Claus, have him give BU several million dollars so we don’t have to borrow to build new dorms.”
(in response to question regarding BU’s lack of a community atmosphere) “We have planted at least 500 trees since I’ve been here.”
“The Swiss and the Germans aren’t very clean people, but they have good people cleaning up for them.”
“We [BU} have never had any charm, so we tried to go get some."
"When I came here in 1970 I said, I think this is the ugliest place I ever saw."
"I used to live in Texas, we had interesting ghosts there. Boston has interesting ghosts, too."
"If you want to run the university, why are you stupid enough to pay money to come here?"
"There wasn't as much drinking when I was in school because we were broke."
"That's how dope got its name, the people who use dope behave dopey. I realize how square that sounds... I probably look more like a mailbox than a person right now."
(regarding BU's refusal to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy) If we had a case of discrimination [based on sexual orientation] on campus, we would take immediate corrective action to remedy it.”
“I don’t want to hear about your sex life, I don’t care.. I don’t care if you’re a macho man that made out with sixteen girls yesterday.”
(regarding sex, homosexuality, and tolerance) This is a fad we’re going through.”
“Wait till he goes to his first dance and see if he gets a thrill when he dances with a girl. If he does, he is heterosexal, if he doesn’t he may have a problem.”
“We are very proud [at BU] of not being politically incorrect.”
No wonder Boston University is the only major college to have an alumni organization devoted to not giving any money. (See the third entry here.) That is, after the $34,000 a year tuition.

*Thanks to Bill Watterson for the term
**Thanks to Frank Furnari for taking better notes than I did.

Kirby Puckett, hero to millions of kids from the mid-80s to mid-90s has been outed as a wife abuser, an unfaithful husband, and an opponent of charity work, thanks in part to an article from St. Paul Pioneer Press writer Bob Sansevere. Over the last year, the public has been privy to assault allegations (from his wife and a woman in a local restaurant), divorce proceedings (which, according to the above article, Kirby still hasn’t signed), and a diminished presence within the Twins organization (no mentions during the 2002 play-offs, no first pitches, no “Kirby Puckett Appreciation Nights” that had occurred roughly once a week after he retired). Now a hero has fallen–and not just any hero–but the hero of Minnesota baseball. As I look to my right, I see a Kirby Puckett bobblehead doll and Wheaties box on my desk. On the wall hangs a 1987 Twins World Series Championship Plaque. On my left is a pennant from that same World Series. The Kirby Puckett people had in their head is irreconcilable with the Kirby Puckett currently in the newspapers. And the Hall-of-Famer to whom I once served a smoked turkey bagel has been shaken from his pedestal.

Yet another activity that occupied my time (and stalled my blog) over the past two months was my temporary (4-week) position as an editorial assistant at Working Media (no website available, sorry). I met some great people there, but was unfortunately only needed to finish up a project they were doing for the American Movie Channel (AMC). But Monique Cuvalier, Norm Schrager, and Michelle Silver were all wonderful people, and made me realize that I’d rather have a repetetive job with fun coworkers and low pay than a stressful job with no coworkers and better pay. Oh yes, and they also taught me about freelancing. Thanks for the lessons, guys.

Never Swim Alone, a show by Canadian playwright Daniel MacIvor, concluded a successful two-day run December 7th. I was fortunate enough to have been cast as William “Bill” Wade, one of the leads (not that a 3-person show has supporting characters). I had an excellent time with the MIT Theater people I met, especially director Dan Katz, Stage Manager Evan Davidson, and fellow actors Dan Liston (who also hails from Minnesota) and Whitney Gaynor. Not that any of them will ever see this, but I had a wonderful time, and for a little while, was able to pretend I went to an Ivy-League-Caliber school. Oh yes, and the show went so well, we had to add a third performance. Cut through the water to the point.

The Minnesota Vikings actually won a road game yesterday–something that had not happened in over two years (Thanksgiving Day, 2000). With that monkey off their backs, there is no reason why they can’t win the rest of their games and go…6-10.

But I jest. Head Coach Mike Tice, who has not always made the smartest moves in the past, decided to go for two with five seconds on the clock and the Vikings down by one. That gutsy call told the team that he had faith in them; it could prove to be a crucial moment for the franchise. The Vikings are in a position similar to that of the Buffalo Bills last year. A team with more talent than it shows on the field loses an abundance of close games, only to rebound the next season, creep to .500, and vie for a playoff spot. It could happen…

I had the wonderful experience of attending the 3rd Annual Santa Speedo Run at Daisy Buchanan’s bar on Newbury Street in Boston. What says “holidays” more than 40-odd drunken guys in speedos, sneakers, and santa hats, running through the Boston traffic, stopping only to do push-ups and sing “Silent Night” loudly and rather off-key? Seriously, what?

Electronic music star Moby was attacked outside The Paradise, a Boston night club located a block from where I lived my senior year in college. According to a friend of a friend who saw him the next day at The Other Side Cafe, “He looked really fucked-up. Gwen Stefani could have come in here, and she would have rather slept with me [chubby and okay-looking] than even touched Moby.”

Finally, Cardinal Bernard Law did something I agree with: he resigned. After years of false denials and attempts to stay in power, Cardinal Law came to the same conclusion as 95 percent of Bostonians, according to recent polls. The last straw came a week ago, when it was revealed that Law wrote letters that willingly and knowingly reassigned pedophile priests to other parishes, rather than giving them the boot. I can’t help but wonder why, since everyone knew this was happening (hell, I remember priest/altar boy jokes from 15 years ago), did it take until 2002 for this scandal to explode?

The Catholic Church needs to reevaluate its criteria for priests. When you force someone to repress their sexuality their entire life, you run the risk of it coming out in twisted ways. I don’t believe that the sexually abusive priests were pedophiles from birth–rather, I think they had no outlet for their sexuality for decades, and it eventually manifested itself with respect to altar boys, who surrounded the priests daily. The solution? There are a few.
1) Accept only asexual (or castrated) priests. Of course, this would only magnify the shortage of priests.
2) Allow married priests. The Church wants priests to remain celibate and unmarried so they can use all their energy to follow God, but that has obviously not been the case. At least if they are married, priests won’t have so much pent-up sexual desire, and they won’t be having sex outside of marriage, which is a terrible, terrible thing.
3) Keep everything the same. Yeah, right. That’s what got them into this mess. Unfortunately, that’s probably what the Catholic Church will do.

Meanwhile, the right wing is going to use this as an excuse to further persecute homosexuals, once again failing to realize that pedophilia and homosexuality are very different. In fact, percentage-wise, heterosexual men are more likely to engage in pedophilia than homosexual men. I’d suggest allowing homosexuals into the priesthood, but that’s about as likely as the Catholic Church allowing female priests.

I’ll close with a quote from Fyvush Finkel on “Boston Public”: “When I was younger there was a cardinal law against premarital sex. Now it seems there is a cardinal law for premarital sex. His name is Bernie.”

Pete Rose recently spoke with baseball comissioner/used car salesman Bud Selig regarding the likelihood of him being reinstated to Major League Baseball. While nobody has officially said what was discussed, many believe that Rose and Selig may have made some sort of agreement wherein Rose will admit betting on baseball and Selig will lift his lifetime ban.

The repercussions of this are varied and enormous. First, the ban from baseball may be lifted, offering Rose the chance to coach, manage, and most importantly, be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Second, Selig’s public approval should actually improve. Third, a backlash of people who disagree with ever letting Rose back into baseball will come out of the woodwork to complain (while public opinion polls are substantially in Rose’s favor, some writers–most notably ESPN.com’s Rob Neyer and Baseballprospectus.com’s Derek Zumsteg–argue vehemently against letting Rose have anything to do with Major League Baseball). Fourth, Rose will cease to be a lightning rod for baseball controversy. For years now, every Hall of Fame induction ceremony has been tainted by either the absence or the support (depending on which side you agree with) of Pete Rose. He even opened a Pete Rose Museum down the street from the Hall. Baseball has spent too much time fighting against a second-tier Hall of Famer, at best. If he were in, they could finally ignore him and his bad haircut.

Things to think about when considering Rose’s case:
1) The Hall of Fame is a separate entity from Major League Baseball, with separate rules. MLB does not have the power to keep anyone out of the Hall; that is a decision only the Hall itself can make.
2) If gambling harms the “integrity of the game,” what about Ty Cobb (racist), Babe Ruth (sexual beast), John McGraw (devout cheater), or any of the drug users or spouse abusers enshrined in the Hall? Should they be rejected retroactively due to their lack of integrity? Surely these personal flaws failed to help the game’s image.
3) What about Shoeless Joe? His lifetime ban ended with his death, one would presume. Should he and Rose get in posthumously?
4) Is the Hall of Fame complete without one of its greatest hitters? While Pete Rose may not deserve the Hall, doesn’t the Hall at least deserve to include Pete Rose?
5) Should Rose be punished less if he never bet against his own team?

I don’t know the truth of what Rose did. I don’t know if he bet against the Reds. I do know that he remains an unrepentant, unsavory character personally, just as he was a hard-nosed, hustling, win-at-all-costs player on the field. My guess is that Selig will allow Rose back into Major League Baseball after some sort of apology. I’m sure the man could be quite a hitting coach.

Meanwhile, let’s all hope Major League Baseball decides against putting a team in Las Vegas…

I received an email on October 25th informing me that my screenplay “The Rivalry” was chosen as one of the Project Greenlight Top 250 out of over 5,000 screenplays submitted. As proud as I was of the honor, I was similarly disappointed to find on November 12th that I had not been chosen as one of the Top 50 screenplays (although two screenplays that I had reviewed, one good and one bad, had made the cut).

Looking back, I realize that my reviews of the other screenplays were generally more constructive, better thought-out, and generous than a lot of the reviews I received. A large part of the review process was rating various aspects of the screenplay on a scale of 1-10. Whereas I started at a 7 and only went as low as 4 on any item, others ranked my entire screenplay as ones (and some did so as tens, as well). I understand that Hollywood is cutthroat, but I certainly expected better from many of the reviewers. Ah well, it’s just another example of American culture being so polarized. Black or white, but no grey.

When links to the top 250 screenplays are posted, I will make sure to add them here.