November 15, 2005

Hello:
   
    When planning a wedding, there are things that are boring, tedious, or frustrating. Actually there
are alot of things that are tedious boring AND frustrating. Getting addresses together to send out
invitations are tedious. Getting invitations back "Return to Sender" are frustrating. Pe-cana, interviewing
photgraphers, and the like are boring.
    But then there is the fun stuff. And when you go through the boring stuff, you appreciate the fun stuff
even more. And what could be more fun for a guy than going to the catering hall where your wedding is
going to be and sampling the food.
   Now on the surface, this seems like another mindless exercise. After all, no catering hall would last
very long if their food sucked. But when have any of you known me to turn down FREE FOOD?
    So we spent Friday night out at Verdi's sampling their various wares. I didn't quite know what to
expect. Would they sneak us into a party and let us try the food there? (There was an African
American M.D's Gala going on where we would have fit right in), or would we have a room where we
could sit by ourselves?
    Well they put us in the office of the main event planner, and had the chef bring in little plates of food.
I felt kind of bad, because this guy has a very nice clean office, with a shiny wooden desk. The
combination of a shiny polished desk, greasy finger food, and Wild Bill is a recipie for disaster.
It wasn't pretty.
     There were these mussels that when I cracked opened the shell, squirted this red juice all over the
place. There were ribs that were super sloppy, shrimp you had to break apart. At a table with some space
and a pile of napkins, maybe I could pull it off. I had one napkin and I was at the guys desk, with him
staring at me waiting for my approval. Of course I said it was good, it was awesome! But it was very
uncomfortable, I'm a slob in the best of circumstances. Never mind this.
      When it was over, we were satisfied in knowing that the food at our wedding was going to be top
notch. However, I'm also quite sure that the employees at Verdi's will never have me over to their houses
for dinner.

News Item: The Election
    Mayor Bloomberg as expected romped over Fernando Ferrer in the mayoral election last Tuesday
night, giving New York another 4 years of his monotone emotionless speeches, but also, a city moving
somewhat in the right direction.Hopefully another 4 years of the schools improving and low crime.
Hopefully he will also start to bring taxes down as well.
       Bloomy's win also spelled bad news for the folks who didn't want the West Side Stadium built,
namely James Dolan of MSG, State Assemblymen Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno, and Daily News
Sports writer Mike Lupica. There was a ballot proposal that would have given the State Assembly more
power over the treasury, which thankfully was voted down. Not that I'm all that happy that the Governor
still has the most control, but its better than Bruno and Silver having it.
      And of course, a loss for Dolan is a victory for the rest of the city. So I would call Bloomberg's win a
good thing. But check back with me next year, because after voting for him in 2001, I was ready to
impeach him in 2002. And maybe if I had a better choice than Freddy (brother can you spare a dime?)
Ferrer, I may have voted Bloomy out. But for now, all I can do is hope that he builds on his successes
and learns from his failures.
       Meanwhile in New Jersey, Senator John Corzine won a rather decisive victory over Doug Forrester to
become governor. I have to admit, I was surprised a bit, not so much at Corzine's win, but the margin of
it. Most polls had the two mudslingers running neck and neck. Corzine won by at least 10 points. Will he
clean up New Jersey's lousy politics? Probably not. But then again, would Forrester have done any
better?
        And they're saying that many of the results of last Tuesday's elections are a referendum on the
Bush administration, which, to say the least, has had it share of troubles since Bush's second term
started last January. While that may be true, it doesn't really mean much. This is an off-year election,
there were a couple of governor's races and our mayor's race (each won by a democrat and in NY a
republican in name only), but the races that count come next year, when Congressional seats are up for
grabs, including Hillary Clinton's here in NY. If this was 2006 instead of 2005, you'd have to think that
Democrats would have a shot at getting back all those seats they've lost the last 12 years. But alot can
change in a year. Last year at this time, Bush and pals were talking about a mandate they got from the
voters, this year they're talking about surviving till 2008. The more things change, the more they stay the
same.


Hockey 05-06

         A little over a month into the first hockey season in 2 years, and with the new rule changes scoring
has gone up, as has penalties. My gawd, every game I've seen has been a penalty fest. Twice this year,
the Rangers have had to kill 10 penalties. 10 penalties in a game!
          But for the most part the game has more flow and a much better pace, more up and down than
side to side. And the Rangers, God love 'em, are actually in first place in their division. Look, I'm not
expecting miracles here, I know that it still a long way before the playoffs, and the team has been down
this road before. But I'll say this, they are alot of fun to watch.
       One of the big criticisms, and I was one of the loudest critics, was the implementation of the
shootouts to resolve tie games. Ties didn't bother me as much as they did others, and I thought that
teams would trap the puck and kill the clock to get to a shootout, where they had a better shot at a win.
       But I have to admit, when I'm watching a game that goes into OT, I'm rooting for a shoot-out. And
my eyes are glued to that TV screen when the shootout starts. I don't care who you are, if the shootouts
don't excite you, then there's something wrong.
      And please spare me the speech about how settling a game via shootout is the same as settling a
baseball game with a HR contest or a basketball game with a slam dunk contest. No, its not.
        The basic idea in hockey is to get the puck past the goalie into the net. All the shootout does is
eliminate the defensemen. There are other ways to score in baseball besides a home run, and the slam
dunk contest is strictly a style competition. The three point shootout is a better example, and even that is
a stretch because there is no defenders at all. In hockey, you still have to get it by the goalie.
       The bottom line is, if they went back to the old system, 5 minutes of sudden death OT, two points if
you win, one point if you tie and diddly-squat if you lose, I wouldn't complain. I'd also like the league to
go back to 21 teams, put the Coyotes back in Winnipeg, take the helmets off the players and for
crissakes more fights. But that won't sell tickets down in Nashville, so I'm not holding my breath. In the
meantime, I'll enjoy these shootouts. They're fun to watch, as much as I hate to admit it.

We have some baby news. Ellen and Carl had a beautiful baby girl, Carli Katherine LiBassi Sunday
morning November 13. (Otherwise known as Felix Unger Day) Everybody's healthy and happy.
Congratulations.

And Happy belated b'day to JR who celebrated on Friday.

Eveyone Else: Have a Great Week
Wild B.