Can Ghermezians' Dream Come Through Again

I was wrong.

Well, not exactly wrong. More like, overly pessimistic about the potential for the Mall of America to fulfill its dream.

Back in September 1992 I editorialized in Chain Store Age the August opening of the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minn., was a Herculean feat that would be hard pressed to attract at least 40 million visitors a year to achieve its financial goals. At the time, 27 million people lived within a 400 mile radius of the retail and entertainment complex. It was not uncommon for Iowa farmers to travel hundreds of miles to visit the Twin Cities to shop Dayton’s, the local department store. The Mall of America with its indoor amusement park, varied dining and entertainment venues and hundreds of retail stores banked on its uniqueness to draw crowds, especially during harsh northern winters when family recreation options were limited.

Fast forward to 2019. Mall of America’s website affirms the dream has become a reality. It proudly boasts more than 40 million visitors a year.

Now, the people who dreamed up Mall of America, and before that the West Edmonton Mall in Canada—the Ghermezian family of the real estate firm Triple Five Group—have placed another big bet, aptly titled American Dream, that a huge, multi-faceted retail and entertainment complex could transform the New York metropolitan area’s spending patterns. Last week it began a months-long phased opening extravaganza of American Dream in the Meadowlands of New Jersey, in the shadow of MetLife Stadium where the New York Giants and Jets play football and concerts are held. Aside from more than 300 stores (currently not open), American Dream features a water park, ski slope, ice skating rink and an amusement park with a roller coaster (https://nyti.ms/2Nblh8v).

American Dream was not a Ghermezian dream from the outset. Originally named Xanadu, the mall was conceived by The Mills Corporation more than 15 years ago. Repeated financial setbacks stymied construction for Mills and subsequent developers. For more than a decade its semi-completed skeleton was a poster-child example of excess consumerism. The Ghermezians bought the concept in 2011.

They have invested heavily in transportation plans to bring New Yorkers the 10 miles across the Hudson River, one of the most densely traveled paths in the country, be it by bridge or tunnel. Just miles from Newark airport, shuttle buses may take travelers to the mall. Already it is common for foreigners to make excursions to Woodbury Commons, an outlet center some 60 miles north of the airport. American Dream is less than 15 miles from Newark.

Unlike the Mall of America, American Dream has a much larger population pool from which to draw visitors. Attracting the 40 million-plus customers a year the Ghermezians say are needed seems possible, even with the more varied entertainment and shopping options available in the New York metro region. But, more to the point of attaining a solid financial return, American Dream is located in Bergen County which prohibits retail sales on Sunday. It is hard to turn a profit in a location that cannot process retail transactions on one of the busiest shopping days of the week.

Bottom line—American Dream probably won’t turn into a nightmare, but I doubt it will provide contented sleep to the Ghermezians.

My Letter in The Times Lights the Way

It took more than two weeks, but The New York Times finally published my letter to the editor, online Sunday and in Monday’s printed edition. 

Back on April 12 two of Thomas Edison’s great-grandsons opined in The Times that “the Department of Energy now wants to roll back new efficiency standards (for light bulbs) signed into law by President George W. Bush and updated, as required, during the Obama administration” (https://nyti.ms/2VDXgtT).

The proposed withdrawal is another example of Donald Trump’s demonic compulsion to eliminate any vestige of progressive action by his predecessors, especially if it smacks of any environmental benefit to reduce the impact of climate change.  

The Edison progeny advocated public and congressional opposition to any plan by the Energy Department to narrow the scope of energy saving standards. 

It was in that context that I sent my letter to The Times. With slight editing to my original submission, The Times ran the following:

“We cannot rely on the Trump administration to do the right thing when it comes to enforcing light bulb energy standards. Instead, private enterprise must lead the way.

“Large chain stores—Walmart, Target, Kmart, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Menards, Costco and Ace Hardware, as well as Amazon—should exert their public service commitment by not buying or stocking less energy efficient incandescent light bulbs.

“Retailers can shine a positive light on the future direction of our country.”

Naturally, not everyone is on board with any plan that would deny consumers the opportunity to buy cheaper 100-watt incandescent bulbs compared to more expensive L.E.D.s. In response to a friend who brought up the issue after seeing my letter, I wrote back, 

“Yes, it will cost more and the poor would be disproportionately hurt. But just as we have required seat belts in cars at a higher cost, just as we require food safety inspections that raise the price of food, just as we have tolls on roads that make travel costlier, there are some mandates that are put in place for the common good. Call it totalitarianism. Or socialism. Or saving the planet for our grandchildren. Doing nothing is not an option for long term survival.”

Here’s how the Edisons put it: “Few actions can reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the planet as cheaply and easily as replacing energy-wasting bulbs with highly efficient ones. The group (the Natural Resources Defense Council) estimates that if every household in the United States replaced just one old bulb with an L.E.D., the country’s overall electric bill would be cut by more than $5 billion in 10 years, and two million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution would be avoided. 

“The savings are so big because the average American household has around 40 lighting sockets, and many still employ energy-wasting bulbs. We need efficiency standards to spur more innovation and ensure that our store shelves carry new bulbs reflecting the latest technology.

“Regrettably, special interests have reared their heads once again. Big bulb manufacturers supported by the Energy Department prefer to take the cheap, inefficient and environmentally harmful path for short-term profits. They would sacrifice our common good for their selfish greed.”

This was not my first letter published in The Times. Eleven years ago, when Allianz was reported by The Times to be near to securing the naming rights to the then new Meadowlands stadium where the New York Giants and Jets would play, I revealed the link between the company and its history of insuring Nazi death camps. To its credit Allianz already had disclosed on its website its association with the Nazi regime. But The Times article merely identified Allianz as a German financial services company (no doubt that is how the company identifies itself in press releases).

After my letter was published The Times followed up with a major story entitled “Naming Rights and Historic Wrongs.” Less than a week after my letter appeared, after intense public rejection of the Allianz overture, Allianz abandoned its bid. Only then did MetLife step in to secure the naming rights (https://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2010/01/chain-of-one-person-events.html).

A Schnorrer's Cry: Baseball's Been Good to Me

I’m a baseball schnorrer.

Theres no getting around it. As I reviewed in my mind my visits to Yankee Stadium, I see a definite pattern of schnorring.

Now, for the uninitiated let me first decipher the meaning of the Yiddish word schnorrer. It may be best defined in my case as a moocher, someone who gets something for nothing or otherwise would not partake in the experience.

Eight years into the new Yankee Stadium I finally made it, with Gilda, to the big ballpark in the Bronx Thursday night, courtesy of our friends Jane and Ken G., who themselves were recipients of four complimentary $150 field level tickets about 12 rows in and a third of the way up the right field line. Great seats.

During my years at Lebhar-Friedman (1977-2009), I was fortunate to be among the privileged to receive the company’s four box seat tickets once or twice a season. They, too, were great seats perhaps a dozen rows behind the Yankee dugout near first base. They were so good they spoiled me for sitting anywhere else.

Unfortunately, along with the building of the new Yankee Stadium came a dramatic increase in season ticket prices which dovetailed with the recession that struck publishing especially hard. L-F made the tough but economically prudent decision to not renew its ticket subscription. 

I, as well, did the financially prudent thing. I forsook going to games. I even turned down a suggestion by Ellie and Donny that we go one Father’s Day several years ago. Instead, I convinced them that rather than spend a minimum $400 on tickets alone, plus food, parking and other incidentals, we should go to a Brooklyn Cyclones minor league game in Coney Island, have dinner at a nearby Russian restaurant and stroll the boardwalk, all for less than the cost of one Yankee ticket. It was a most enjoyable Father’s Day.

I didn’t always use the L-F tickets for my own enjoyment. I would give them to Dan and Ellie. I even gave Dan tickets to the seventh game of the 1999 World Series because it was to be played on his 21st birthday. Baseball aficionados no doubt realized the gift turned out to be a beau geste as the Yankees wrapped up the series against the San Diego Padres in four games. 

I was fortunate enough to go to a World Series seventh game in 1975. I scored a free ticket from the sports editor of The New Haven Register where I worked as a bureau chief. Happy to report the Cincinnati Reds came from behind to win the title against the Boston Red Sox. Aside from the Reds’ wives and front office personnel, I was probably one of the few people in Fenway Park pleased with the outcome. I was intelligent enough to keep my delirious contentment to myself that evening, even from my fellow Register reporter John Membrino, a die-hard Sox fan.

After moving back to New York in 1977, the only time I went to a Yankee game other than with L-F tickets was with John and Gilda to watch the home team play the Red Sox. We sat high in the upper deck along the left field foul line. I have no idea why people pay good money to sit in those far-away seats. 

My baseball ticket schnorring began as a child. My brother Bernie and I would go to Yankee games using tickets provided by one of our father’s sales representatives, a Mr. Schaeman. Half the fun was going on the ear-popping elevator to pick up the tickets at his office in the Empire State Building. Back then, in the late 1950s early 1960s, when the last out was recorded, on their way to the subway fans could walk on the ball field toward the exit gate in center field. Police would keep you from running on the infield diamond, but to tread where Mickey Mantle patrolled was a thrill to be savored.

We didn’t always go to Yankee games. Bernie rooted for the Dodgers. We went to Ebbetts Field virtually for free after eating 10 Elsie the Cow ice cream treats and sending the wrappers along with 25 cents to the Bordens Company. Mr. Shaeman also provided tickets to Mets games at the Polo Grounds and Shea Stadium.

For the record, I’m not just a baseball ticket schnorrer. For many years now Gilda’s brother Carl sends us two tickets to four regular season and one pre-season game of the New York Giants football team. They, too, are really good seats, though in recent years I’ve mostly chosen to avoid the two hour drag-of-a-ride home from the Meadowlands in heavy traffic. It’s a lot more comfortable watching the game on televised tape delay skipping through commercials. If Dan and Allison or Donny and Ellie can’t use the tickets, we give them to friends, Gilda’s co-workers or donate them to charity auctions.

By the way, at Thursday night’s Yankee game, the Bronx Bombers won in true bomber fashion. Brett Gardner hit a tie-breaking walk-off home run leading off the bottom of the 11th inning. Too bad we headed to the parking lot at the conclusion of the 10th inning. Ah well, at least we heard John Sterling’s call on the radio, “It is high, it is far, it is gone. The Yankees win!”

Trump's Attack Tactic: What Have I Got to Lose?

A few weeks ago Donald Trump’s closing argument in his appeal to Afro-Americans for their vote was, “What have you got to lose?” After years of not achieving a better life under Democratic presidents, he reasoned, blacks should switch allegiance and vote Republican. “What have you got to lose?” 

Apparently Trump is intent on taking his own counsel when it comes to confronting his latest setback, the release Friday of an inflammatory, sexist, degrading 2005 tape of his comments and behavior toward women. Already lagging in their support, particularly from suburban housewives in key battleground states, Trump seems poised to blast away at Hillary and Bill Clinton for the former president’s infidelities and his wife’s aggressive defense of him and attack on his accusers, some of whom, in the end, proved to be aggrieved parties. 

Trump is casting Hillary as a bully who attacked, shamed and intimidated her husband’s “victims.” He might well level those charges against her during their debate Sunday night.

It’s a risky tactic, given his low ratings among female voters. But Trump might reason he has nothing to lose by sharpening his assault on the moral code of the Clintons at a time when his own compass has been tossed topsy-turvy beyond what he has already said during his campaign about Megyn Kelly, Rosie O’Donnell, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz’s wife, Gold Star mother Ghazala Khan and former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. 

Trump might further reason that his Republican base doesn’t want him to retreat. A poll released by Politico Sunday morning found “just 12 percent of Republicans — and 13 percent of female Republicans — agree. 

“As of now, GOP voters largely want the party to stand behind Trump. Nearly three-quarters of Republican voters, 74 percent, surveyed on Saturday said party officials should continue to support Trump. Only 13 percent think the party shouldn’t back him.” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/politico-morning-consult-poll-229394

It’s not uncommon for viewership of presidential debates to drop off after the first one (the initial debate was the most-watched in history—some 84 million tuned in). Given the exposure of Trump’s powderkeg tape, which obscured the release by WikiLeaks Friday of troubling Clinton emails, the audience for the second debate could equal, if not top, the first.  

They’ll be tuning in to see how far Trump will go over the line of decency and, equally intriguing, how Clinton will respond. It makes for “must-see TV,” but not on NBC (which originated that phrase back in the 1990s) because the peacock network will be televising the football game between the New York Giants and host Green Bay Packers in Wisconsin, one of the battleground states. For the sake of most marriages, not just among fans of both teams, I hope households have more than one TV or will do as I do—DVR the football game for later viewing. 

From Nail-biting Addict to Football Enabler

Last week I confessed I was an addict, someone who bit his fingernails. Well, I think I’m over that nasty habit, at least for now. Thanks to some paper medical tape I found in our first aid kit I managed to cover my left pinkie long enough for the nail to grow back without awakening my desire to chew it off.

Today I’m admitting to an even more serious shortcoming—I’m an enabler. Like hundreds of millions of other Americans, and an increasing number of foreigners, I enjoy watching football. In other words, I condone and enable violence that I know will destroy an athlete’s health and the lives of his family because of repetitive brain trauma.

I’m like so many of the wives and girlfriends of football players keeping my mouth shut so I can enjoy Sunday afternoons, and now Sunday nights, and Monday nights, and Thursday nights. It’s a good thing I’m not into high school or college football or else I’d have no respite from sanctioned violence and have almost unlimited tutelage in how to behave badly toward women.

Did anyone else notice that during the halftime report of the New York Giants-Arizona Cardinals game on the Fox Network, the segue from each segment was a simulated stiff arm blasted into one’s face? How inappropriate given Ray Rice’s left hook to his then fiancée’s, now wife’s, face in that New Jersey casino elevator.

It’s our real-life version of The Hunger Games, or maybe a recreation of Roman gladiators, though the deaths of the participants are not as immediate.

Perhaps you’re thinking I’m being a bit too melodramatic, that football players voluntarily assume the risk. Of course, it wasn’t until last week, according to The New York Times, “that the National Football League, which for years disputed evidence that its players had a high rate of severe brain damage, has stated in federal court documents that it expects nearly a third of retired players to develop long-term cognitive problems and that the conditions are likely to emerge at ‘notably younger ages’ than in the general population.”

In The Daily News, Steve Almond, the author of “Against Football,” wrote, “Yes, of course these players are grown men (in most cases). And of course they choose to incur the risk of playing a violent game; the pros get paid a lot of money to do so. They also wear helmets and uniforms that help insulate them from damage, and that insulate us, the viewers, from the bone-rattling reality of collisions.

“That’s why we don’t view these acts as crimes. They are what sociologists call “sanctioned violence.” Fans consume these collisions without feeling that they are watching something barbaric. Indeed, they are regarded as necessary and even heroic in the context of the game, which is why television networks place parabolic microphones on the sidelines, and why they replay the most violent hits over and over again.

“But to the human brain—which is what’s at issue for football players—the context is irrelevant. At the neurological level, violence is violence. Trauma is trauma.

“Whether or not Roger Goodell can weather the storm and cling to his tenure as commissioner—and he has at least 44 million reasons to try (a reference to his $44 million paycheck last year)—the larger moral question that looms over him and the NFL and us fans is whether we should be consuming as a form of entertainment a sport whose end result is, in too many cases, permanent brain damage.”

Sadly, even though I question the morality of parents who invest their children in football programs given our current knowledge of the consequences, I still devote time to watching football, mostly my favorite team, the Giants, but other games as well when I have nothing better to watch. So, the bottom line is, I’m an enabler. 

Giant Bust: Am I a disloyal fan or just a realistic one? At this point in the season, two games in, it is obvious the Giants are not a good football team. The offensive line can’t open holes for the running backs. They don’t pass protect well, either. The quarterback is too prone to forcing his throws and incurring interceptions. The receivers are mediocre. The defense is okay on the run and pass but gives up too many big plays, especially on third down. Special teams are a liability. In short, rooting for the Giants is an exercise in hope and futility.

Last year I stayed loyal to the Giants and it cost me in my football pools. This year I am listening to my head, not my heart. Last week, for example, I picked Arizona to beat the Giants even with a backup quarterback starting for the Cardinals. The Giants didn’t disappoint: They fumbled twice in critical situations, once on a kick return near their goal line and another time near the Cardinal goal on what could have been a game-tying scoring drive; The defense gave up at least five first downs on penalties, resulting in at least seven points for Arizona. The special teams allowed a touchdown on a punt return. Receivers, including the normally sure-handed Victor Cruz, dropped numerous passes.

The only joy I had from watching the game was knowing I didn’t lose any money on the Giants. Though as a fan I would have preferred that outcome to seeing them go bust again.

Spoiler Alert: The Winner of Super Bowl XLVIII ...

I haven't read articles predicting the outcome of Super Bowl XLVIII, I haven't checked the point spread though I should, considering I'm in a pool where I could win $250 if I guess right and my closest competition fumbles.

No matter. Here's my prognostication for Sunday night’s ultimate football contest. Long time readers of this blog might recall that I came eerily close to forecasting most details of the last few games, especially two years ago when the New York Giants defeated the New England Patriots.

So here goes. The Denver Broncos will take an early 6-0 lead over the Seattle Seahawks. A troublesome start as Denver could not pierce the end zone for a touchdown on their first two drives.

Seattle will convert an interception into a touchdown either on a run back or a short drive of less than 20 yards. The first quarter will end with Seattle ahead 7-6.

In the second quarter Denver quarterback Peyton Manning will throw a touchdown pass to Wes Welker. The first half will end with Seattle kicking a field goal to narrow the score to 13-10.

In the third quarter Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson will use his legs to drive the Seahawks to a 17-13 lead.

The fourth quarter will begin with a Denver field goal followed by a sustained Denver drive of 80-plus yards for a touchdown.

Denver's 23-17 lead will appear precarious as Wilson leads a long drive into Bronco territory, but with less than two minutes in the game Denver's defense will force a turnover, sealing a victory.

Having won the Super Bowl and been named the Most Valuable Player of the game, Manning will announce his retirement.

As I’ve written in the past, now you are free to concentrate on the commercials.

The Jackie Robinson Story vs. 42

Having just seen 42, the biopic of Jackie Robinson’s struggle to break the color barrier in major league baseball in 1947, last Sunday, I was intrigued to watch the 1950 film The Jackie Robinson Story starring Jackie Robinson that was aired on Turner Classic Movies Friday afternoon. 

Biopics are usually quite syrupy. They play loose with some facts. Comparing two cinema treatments of the same story left me perplexed as to which one was more accurate. In some instances, both films produced shoddy history.

Take, for example, the simple facts of when, how and where the Brooklyn Dodgers clinched the pennant in 1947. In The Jackie Robinson Story, the Dodgers clinched in front of their home fans at Ebbets Field. With two outs in the bottom of the eighth inning and a man on second base, Robinson tied the score with a double. He scored the deciding run when the next batter singled him home. 

In 42, the Dodgers were shown playing the Pirates in Pittsburgh. Robinson hit a late inning home run to win the game. General manager Branch Rickey, the driving force behind baseball integration, was not at the game. He was depicted back in Brooklyn listening to a broadcast as he never played in or watched a baseball game on a Sunday, a promise he had made to his mother, a devout Methodist, as was Rickey. 

So here’s the truth—Robinson had little to do with winning the pennant-clinching game. Actually, no Dodger deserves credit. The Dodgers captured the National League flag that year after the second place team, the St. Louis Cardinals, lost a night game at home on September 22 to the Chicago Cubs. For good measure, the Dodgers went out and won their game the next day against the New York Giants. The score was 6-1. Robinson played only part of the game. He went hitless in two at bats. He had no runs batted in. He was removed from the game after batting in the fourth inning, with the Dodgers leading 2-1. 

September 23 was a Tuesday. Rickey would have been at the game. It was, after all, a home game, at Ebbets Field. 

FYI, Dan Bankhead picked up a four-inning save for the Dodgers on September 23. Bankhead was an Afro-American teammate of Robinson. 

In The Jackie Robinson Story, a spring training exhibition game between the Dodgers and their farm team, The Montreal Royals, had to be cancelled because the city of Sanford, Fla., would not permit white and Negro players to be on a field at the same time. In case you’re a little startled, yes, that’s the same Sanford, Fla., that George Zimmerman hails from. I’ll let you draw any conclusions as to how prejudices have changed, if at all, in the ensuing 66 years.  

That Other Manning

From Manning to Manning: The focus over the last few days has been on Eli Manning, with a little bit of spotlight on big brother Peyton and father Archie. When football and the Super Bowl are national, even international extravaganzas, it’s hard to escape the klieg lights and camera lenses, especially after you’ve engineered your second upset victory over the New England Patriots in the waning seconds of a nail-biting game, as Eli did on Sunday for the once again champion New York Giants.

But our collective attention as a nation and as a member of the family of nations might be better focused on that other Manning, Bradley Manning. He’s not a football player, not an NFL quarterback like the other Mannings. He’s not, as far as I know, related to Eli and his family.

For those who might have forgotten, Bradley Manning is the U.S. Army soldier suspected of providing hundreds of thousands of documents to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. Pfc. Manning is to face a court martial shortly for his alleged transgression.

Some label Bradley a hero, even going so far as to suggest he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Others call him a traitor for revealing classified government documents. Whatever your take on his alleged actions, there is no doubt publication by WikiLeaks of government secrets has enlightened the dialogue about our foreign affairs in a fashion not seen since publication of the Pentagon Papers revealed the behind the scenes drama that led to U.S. involvement in Vietnam and the loss of more than 58,000 America servicemen.

With all the facts not yet available, Bradley Manning is a figure to be neither prematurely reviled nor celebrated. But it is certain that the disposition of his court martial, and any subsequent action by or against WikiLeaks, will have a more lasting effect on our country and the world than Eli Manning’s triumphant march up the gridiron, no matter how exhilarated he made Giants fans feel and how sad he left Patriots fans.


The Blame Game: As the Giants and their fans celebrated through the Canyon of Heroes in lower Manhattan and later at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey today, it is worth remembering the Super Bowl easily could have been won by the Patriots. Equally worth consideration is the fame or shame that can rest on one’s shoulders, drawn there in an instant or taken away in a nanosecond.

Mario Manningham is being hailed for making “the catch” that helped transport the Giants to victory. Yet, had Big Blue not won, he easily could have been blamed for two muffed catches that prevented New York from getting within scoring distance. Five minutes before his claim-to-fame 38-yard catch, Super Mario failed to stay in bounds on a 28-yard heave from Eli Manning that would have given the Giants a first down inside the Pats’ five yard line. He was criticized by TV commentator Chris Collingsworth for repeatedly running too close to the sidelines throughout his career.

Earlier in the game, late in the second quarter, Manningham ran a deep post pattern. He did not catch a ball Manning put within his reach, right above his head. He whiffed on the ball with his left hand and couldn’t bring it in with his right. The Giants had to punt and New England quarterback Tom Brady then led his team to a go-ahead touchdown with eight seconds left in the first half.

With his spectacular catch on the Giants’ last drive, Manningham went from bum to hero. Such are the vagaries of sports.

But that doesn’t make me comprehend how any fan or member of the press could hang the loss by New England on Brady, as has been reported. Giselle Bundchen, Brady’s supermodel wife, might have been indelicate in how she said it after the game, but it's true his receivers let the team down. Wes Welker, Deion Branch and Aaron Hernandez should have caught four passes that were in their hands, two missed catches on each of the last two possessions. They weren't all picture perfect passes but they were good enough to be caught 98% of the time. These quality receivers, however, dropped 100% of them. And as I wrote Monday, had Rob Gronkowski's ankle been better he could have pushed off of it and dove for the tipped last-play-of-the-game-Hail-Mary-pass. I believe he would have caught it.

If you're going to blame Brady for anything it would be the blocked third down pass by Jason Pierre-Paul that forced the Pats to take a field goal in the second quarter, especially since the announcers said they had practiced the need for Brady to get the ball over the pass rushers. The four-point difference between a field goal and a touchdown with point after was the difference in the game. You could also fault him for the early first quarter safety, but New England had plenty time to recover from that two-point faux pas.

It’s important to remember football is a team sport. Individuals make key contributions, both negative and positive, but unlike sports such as singles tennis, boxing, golf, skiing, and most track & field events, one side wins because of the collective effort of a team. As Giselle said, "My husband cannot f--king throw the ball and catch the ball at the same time. I can't believe they dropped the ball so many times."


Gimme Some R-e-s-p-e-c-t, Part II: On January 25, 2011, I commented on a NY Times story of a few days earlier about ideas to rejuvenate suburbia. One suggestion was to transform “dead” malls into downtown areas that could be enjoyed by an increasingly aging society.

Not much has changed in a year, which puzzled me as to why on February 6, 2012, The Times chose to focus once more on the plight of shopping centers during these economically stressed times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/business/making-over-the-mall-in-rough-economic-times.html?_r=1). Aside from a snappy front page headline, “How About Gardening or Golfing at the Mall?”, there really was nothing new in this story.

Which means I once again can tell you that 16 years ago I editorialized in my magazine that excess shopping center space should be converted to alternate uses including turning the square footage into senior citizens apartments, low or moderate income housing, community centers, and my personal favorite, low-risk detention centers.

Stay tuned for next year’s edition...

Bragging Rights

So, did you like the Super Bowl commercials?

I found most of them insipid, inane, tasteless, misogynist, lacking creativity. For way too many I wondered what product or service the advertiser was trying to pitch. My favorite was the Doritos ad of the dog that buried the family cat and bribes the owner to keep silent with a bag of chips.

Okay, I can’t contain myself any longer. It’s time to review my Super Bowl prognostications against the reality of the football game. I said last Tuesday:

Tom Brady and the New England Patriots will employ a no-huddle offense from the beginning of the game in an effort to tire the most dominant part of the New York Giants defense, its pass rush. Only if the Pats take a lead will Brady revert to a traditional huddle offense. NAILED IT!

As this year New England has mostly thrown short passes, early on the Pats will attempt some deep pass patterns in an effort to loosen up the planned tight Giants pass coverage. BRADY’S FIRST PASS, UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE END ZONE, WAS A BOMB, FOR BOTH THE PATRIOTS AND THE GIANTS. FOR THE PATS, IT WAS AN INCOMPLETION. FOR THE GIANTS IT RESULTED IN A TWO-POINT SAFETY AS THE PASS WAS RULED INTENTIONAL GROUNDING.

The Giants have been victimized by the long ball all year, including the NFC championship game against the San Francisco 49ers, so Brady will try to land some bombs. BRADY THREW SEVERAL BOMBS, CONNECTING ON NONE, INCLUDING THE HAIL-MARY-PASS-LAST-PLAY-OF-THE-GAME, THE BALL INTERCEPTED BY CHASE BLACKBURN INTENDED FOR ROB GRONKOWSKI, THE DROP BY WES WELKER, AND THE OVERTHROW ON THE PLAY NEAR THE END OF THE GAME WHEN THE GIANTS WERE FLAGGED FOR 12 MEN ON DEFENSE.

Also look for the Patriots to throw more than a usual amount of passes to running backs as top tight end Rob Gronkowski will play at less than optimum level because he will not have sufficiently recovered from a high left ankle sprain sustained during the AFC championship game against the Baltimore Ravens. GRONKOWSKI OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT COMPETE EFFECTIVELY. HAD HE BEEN ABLE TO PUSH OFF HIS ANKLE HE MIGHT WELL HAVE CAUGHT THE DEFLECTED HAIL MARY PASS. SURPRISINGLY, THE PATRIOTS DID NOT EMPLOY SCREEN PASSES BUT THEY DID THROW TO THEIR RUNNING BACKS SIX TIMES FOR 57 YARDS AND A TOUCHDOWN.

Half-time score: Giants 10, Patriots 7. CLOSE. IT WAS PATRIOTS 10, GIANTS 9.

Contrary to popular thinking that the Giants will be pass-happy against a less than highly regarded Patriot pass defense, the Giants will work early to establish a bruising running game. Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs will anchor a running attack that will rack up at least 130 yards. THE GIANTS RAN 28 TIMES (VS. 40 PASSES) FOR 114 YARDS. THEY HAD A 10 YARD RUN BY BRANDON JACOBS NULLIFIED BY A HOLDING PENALTY. OTHERWISE, THEY SURELY WOULD HAVE MET MY EXPECTATIONS.

Tight ends will play a big part in the New York offense, at least 6 catches. BINGO. BEAR PASCO CAUGHT 4 PASSES FOR 33 YARDS; JAY BALLARD TWO PASSES FOR 10 YARDS.

Eli Manning will throw one touchdown pass to Hakeem Nicks. RIGHT ON THE NUMBER, WRONG ON THE PLAYER. IT WENT TO VICTOR CRUZ.

Bradshaw will score on a six-yard run. PERFECTO. RIGHT DOWN TO THE YARD MARKER. IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN PRETTY, BUT IT WAS THE GAME-WINNING TOUCHDOWN.

The Giants will have to settle for three field goals from inside the red zone as the much-maligned Patriot defense stiffens inside the 20 yard line. THE PATRIOT DEFENSE DID INDEED STIFFEN INSIDE THE RED ZONE, FORCING THE GIANTS TO TAKE TWO FIELD GOALS.

Brady will be sacked in the end zone for a safety. IT WASN’T OFFICIALLY LABELED A SACK, BUT JUSTIN TUCK FORCED BRADY TO INTENTIONALLY GROUND THE BALL, RESULTING IN A SAFETY.

He’ll also be stuffed on a fourth down quarterback sneak late in the first half or the game. BRADY NEVER TRIED A FOURTH DOWN SNEAK.

Final score: Giants 25, Patriots 17. I WAS RIGHT THE PATS WOULD SCORE 17 POINTS. I MISSED THE GIANTS TOTAL. THEY SCORED JUST 21 POINTS.

MVP: Ahmad Bradshaw. WELL, I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO EASY TO SAY ELI MANNING WOULD BE THE MVP. NEXT TIME I’LL PICK THE SURE THING.

Now that you know the outcome of the game, you can relax and concentrate on the commercials. SEE ABOVE.

Odds & Ends

It was more than a little eerie to see Bonnie Brooks named head of Lord & Taylor on January 23 and three days later see retired L&T CEO Joseph Brooks had died at age 84. To the best of my knowledge, the two Brookses are related by last name only, but that didn’t still the willies that shuttered through my body.

Joe Brooks was one of the first retail executives my magazine profiled shortly after I took editorial command in early 1979. Four years earlier he had taken charge of Lord & Taylor, returning the specialty department store to a luster not known since the legendary Dorothy Shaver was its president in the 1930s. He restored the long-stemmed rose as the company’s corporate logo, made American designers a focal point of merchandising, and ordered the playing of the national anthem each morning in the flagship Fifth Avenue store.

Joe Brooks was very mindful of image. Accordingly, he refused to carry “see-through lingerie” and “hooker shoes,” footwear with very high heels and platforms. Lord & Taylor no longer abides by those restrictions.


For the Record: I hate making mistakes, but my last two posts contained numerical errors, both since corrected on the blog site. My Monday entry on the Florida primary incorrectly stated the number of delegates awarded the winner of the Sunshine State Republican presidential primary. It is 50, not 55.

Tuesday’s Super Bowl forecast put the final score as New York Giants 24, New England Patriots 17. It should have been Giants 25, Patriots 17. The Giants will score two touchdowns (12 points), two points after touchdown (2), three field goals (9) and one safety (2) for a total of 25.


Weather Indicator: Temperatures topped 60 degrees today, sufficiently abnormal to fool even hibernating bees into awakening from their dormancy. With the car window rolled down I caught one taking a rest on my left thumb as I waited at a red light.

Birds have provided another natural indication of our topsy-turvy winter weather. They aren’t eating as much seed or suet as in years’ past as they have been able to find organic delights in the absence of snow cover. Mind you, I’m not complaining. Nor are the squirrels who have become quite aggressive lately. One in particular has figured out how to get into two feeders.

Denied entry from above because of a squirrel baffle, he’s shown Olympian dexterity in doing a standing high jump of about four feet to the bottom of the metal hanging cage housing the seed bowl. He grasps it and hoists himself up and over the side into seed heaven for the few moments before I shoo him out. To thwart this athletic assault I’ve changed bowls, suspending a plastic bowl that doesn’t need to sit in a wire cage. I hope it works.

The squirrel has a second way to get to the goodies. He shimmies down the chain suspending the bowl from a tree limb, but instead of trying to get around the baffle to get inside the bowl, he leaps to a nearby birdseed house, pushes up the roof which slides up to permit more seed to be stored, and jumps in for a meal unseen by any of his compatriots. I was flabbergasted when I saw this and quickly had to shift the location of the birdseed house to a spot I hope is too far for his acrobatic legerdemain. Again, I hope this works.

Super Bowl Crystal Ball

It was media day of Super Bowl week in Indianapolis today. I am not an accredited journalist for the ultimate football game of the year, nor did I go out of my way to listen to the drivel emanating from the heartland about the Super Bowl. But I will give you my prognostications about the contest between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots.

Tom Brady and the Patriots will employ a no-huddle offense from the beginning of the game in an effort to tire the most dominant part of the Giants defense, its pass rush. Only if the Pats take a lead will Brady revert to a traditional huddle offense.

As this year New England has mostly thrown short passes, early on the Pats will attempt some deep pass patterns in an effort to loosen up the planned tight Giants pass coverage. The Giants have been victimized by the long ball all year, including the NFC championship game against the San Francisco 49ers, so Brady will try to land some bombs.

Also look for the Patriots to throw more than a usual amount of passes to running backs as top tight end Rob Gronkowski will play at less than optimum level because he will not have sufficiently recovered from a high left ankle sprain sustained during the AFC championship game against the Baltimore Ravens.

Half-time score: Giants 10, Patriots 7.

Contrary to popular thinking that the Giants will be pass-happy against a less than highly regarded Patriot pass defense, the Giants will work early to establish a bruising running game. Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs will anchor a running attack that will rack up at least 130 yards.

Tight ends will play a big part in the New York offense, at least 6 catches. Eli Manning will throw one touchdown pass to Hakeem Nicks; Bradshaw will score on a six-yard run.

The Giants will have to settle for three field goals from inside the red zone as the much-maligned Patriot defense stiffens inside the 20 yard line.

Brady will be sacked in the end zone for a safety. He’ll also be stuffed on a fourth down quarterback sneak late in the first half or the game.

Final score: Giants 25, Patriots 17.

MVP: Ahmad Bradshaw.

Now that you know the outcome of the game, you can relax and concentrate on the commercials.