I’ll begin with my thoughts on the main characters:

Zack Morris: one of my biggest role models in life. He’s able to date just about every girl in school, skip class, lead his own rock band (Zack Attack), be a basketball star and score a miraculous 1502 on the SAT. How could this guy not be everybody’s role model? Oh yeah, and he went out with (and later married) Kelly Kapowski. What more do you need?

Speaking of Kelly, could there be a more perfect girl? She’s gorgeous. She’s head cheerleader (and of course, the most popular girl in school), and she’s extraordinarily nice. She never puts anyone down and tries to accommodate everyone’s needs.

For the opposite of this, look no further than Lisa “The Worst Character” Turtle. She’s outright evil to Screech. I can’t help but think as I watch the show, “It’s alright if you don’t like him, but isn’t he your friend? What’s up with the constant put-downs all the time? And another thing: We get that you’re into fashion. You don’t need to bring it up at every moment you’re not driving Screech toward becoming a sociopath.”

Why does Screech take all of her, and everyone else’s, insults? Are those real friends?

I used to really dislike A.C. Slater, but after watching a lot of episodes lately, I’m starting to come around. So what if he has a Jheri curl mullet? He seems like a genuinely nice person to me. He took responsibility when he crashed the drivers ed car outside Mr. Belding’s office and did a great job rescuing Denise Richards when working as a beach lifeguard (yes, that was her).

And Jessie Spano? Oink, baby.

What was the deal with Tori Scott, that biker girl? She came, Jessie and Kelly disappeared, and then she disappeared never to be heard from again? While it bugs me that this parallel universe could never be explained, I say good riddance. She was horrible. Are we really supposed to believe that Zack Morris would lower his standards by that amount? Going from Kelly Kapowski to Tori Scott would be like going from lobster to sardines. Give me a break.

And as big a fan of Kelly Kapowski as I am, how could she leave Zack for that creepy Jeff guy? I always wondered why Zack and A.C. didn’t meet him out in the parking lot outside The Max late one night. To make matters worse, she again left Zack in “The College Years” for her professor, Prof. Lasky. At least she came to her senses in the end.

I remember back when I used to watch “Saved by the Bell” in elementary school, I couldn’t help but think that my experiences in high school (and later, college) would be similar to those that I watched on my TV. I thought that every time a girl gave me a peck on the cheek, anyone watching would scream and shout, “oooooh!” After seeing Jessie’s singing career destroyed, I was so scared of developing an overbearing caffeine addiction that I didn’t start drinking coffee until only one year ago. And I was really looking forward to all of the blonde bimbos.

Well, none of that happened. My college experience hasn’t been anything like Zack Morris’, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a good time. After all, John Lennon once wrote that “life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” If four years ago someone had told me that I’d be graduating from Wash. U. in 2008, I would have called them crazy. But here I am, and I’m grateful for the opportunities that this University has granted me. I’ve only spent two short years here, but they have been well worth it. Good luck in the future everyone! Go Bayside!

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

It would seem that a student counterplan could be implemented such that this work can be done in advance, but no. The professors have outsmarted us again, because there were mountains of reading to summit the week prior and somehow they managed to make a deal with Comedy Central to get a South Park marathon going over the entire weekend. Damn their malevolence.

The only proper response: combine three Red Bulls with five NoDose into a large mixing bowl, add a couple shots of 5-Hour Energy to taste, sprinkle with Guarana and crushed espresso beans and enjoy a whole night of sleepless school work. Unhealthy you say? Try dealing with the stress of losing a grade for every day of lateness, or in some cases receiving a straight zero, and decide then which situation is worse for your body and mind.

The day after is almost unreal. Running purely on adrenaline after the caffeine binge has abandoned a now sickly frame, a student stumbles as though drunk into classes from which he or she will learn nothing. Speech becomes almost impossible while only insane thoughts run through the mind (I wonder what they do with all of the turkey heads at Thanksgiving?). The sight of daylight may be the most disheartening notion there is, knowing that even if the work were completed in the next 10 minutes, attempting to sleep would only be detrimental to circadian rhythms, yet to lay one’s head on a pillow would be divine.

Conceptually, not sleeping throws off all previously held ideas about day and night. The two seem entirely mutually exclusive: usually we go to sleep at night and wake up in the day. However, when they run seamlessly together, from afternoon to night to morning, one begins to question the normalcy of a regular sleep schedule. One begins to think that he or she can actually feel the Earth rotating and watch the sun pass over the sky followed closely by the moon followed closely again by the sun.

But no, this is just the insanity setting in.

In the end, pulling the proverbial all-nighter seems like an accomplishment. At the least it gives you bragging rights. At the most (for those fellow masochists out there) it can be kind of fun.

A study at St. Lawrence University showed that at least “two-thirds of the students reported that they had pulled at least one all-nighter during a semester.” Considering that St. Lawrence University does not even register on the U.S. News and World Report rankings of top colleges in the nation (and that Wash. U. is No. 12), I would imagine our numbers to be a bit higher.

The current world record for sleeplessness was set in 1977 by a rocking chair marathoner by the name of Maureen Weston who managed to go 449 hours (almost 19 days) without once stopping to rest her eyes. The resulting effects are best recorded by a high school 17-year-old named Randy Gardner in 1964, who stayed up for a full 11 days, the consequences of which are effectively the same as those of doing hard drugs: moodiness, slurred speech, loss of motor functions and hallucinations. I stayed up for three days once and can attest to these ailments and to the fact that it was an excruciatingly awful experience.

More importantly, many studies (including ones done by St. Lawrence University, Stanford University and one by Brown University that found that college students are the most sleep deprived people in the country) show that, though lack of sleep may be a suitable means for getting it all done, it greatly decreases academic and sports performance and should not be used as a means for getting ahead.

So ask for an extension, make up an excuse (I was rescuing beached whales off the coast of.uh.Morocco?) or take a late grade, but make some time for shut-eye because your professors are plotting as we speak.

Christian is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

When I heard that Obama would give a speech that addressed the controversy, then, I was interested but skeptical. I did not see a way out of this for him. A 20-year relationship that had been well-documented and talked about repeatedly by Obama himself could not be erased by a single speech.

Although Obama was unsuccessful in this impossible task on Tuesday, he yet again impressively exceeded expectations. He delivered a brilliant speech on modern race relations in America, linking many of the controversies of the campaign together while simultaneously addressing issues that most politicians are afraid to touch. It was, simply, one of the best speeches on race I have ever heard. He was brutally honest about not only the country’s deep-seated racism, but also his personal ties to such views. Obama said what everyone already knew but was afraid to say: Racism is a part of American society. It is found, in its various forms and degrees, in all groups and at all levels. It’s unacceptable but its origins ought to be understood.

Obama did something rare in American politics: He challenged the American people. He challenged the public to acknowledge the prevalence of racial bias, understand those who have such attitudes and confront it, rather than flatly condemn it and “wish it away,” as he said.

When have we ever seen a politician truly challenge the American people like this? Could we imagine any other candidate who, with so much to lose, would not take the politically easy road? This moment, in which Obama delivered a speech he had written himself with his political career on the line, was an insight into what he is made of. His ability to act under extreme pressure has been tested repeatedly, and time and again he has delivered. And he hasn’t delivered in the way a conventional politician would, placating people’s fears, saying what they want to hear, and taking advantage of their ignorance; instead, he stuck to what he believes in and appealed to the American people to improve collectively. Tuesday’s speech was a bold, courageous and extremely dangerous move on Obama’s part-evidence that his “candidacy of change” may indeed be more than just a campaign slogan. As I watched Barack Obama on Tuesday, I felt as if I were witnessing the next phase of American social progress.

But as brilliant as the speech and his courage were, it must be remembered that the true purpose of giving the speech was not to analyze modern race relations but to explain and defend his deep ties to Rev. Wright. On this level, despite offering the best defense possible, he did not succeed entirely. His pastor problem is not completely solved. Many questions remain. Why weren’t his extreme disagreements and concerns with Rev. Wright voiced earlier? Why did he reject such views only when videotapes of the sermons became public?

Obama’s attempt to draw a parallel between Rev. Wright’s hateful remarks and his white grandmother’s fear of black men fell short. The key difference between the two is that Obama did not choose his grandmother; he did choose his pastor. Obama did not grow up in Trinity United Church of Christ. He chose to attend the church and chose Rev. Wright as his spiritual mentor as an adult. He chose to attend the church for 20 years, even after he heard such sermons, and he chose to bring his children to the church. Why did he make these choices? Why is someone with these insane beliefs the source of his spiritual guidance?

These types of questions could not have been adequately answered. Because of this, the uncertainty and uneasiness created by the revelation of these sermons remain. That is not to say that Obama ascribes to the beliefs of his pastor, but it is to say that the thought of this lunatic having the president’s ear is deeply disturbing.

However, Obama would not be the first president to have ties to these types of beliefs. The United States has had presidents with ties to racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic beliefs in the past and some presidents have even held these beliefs themselves. As Obama acknowledged, these views are an undeniable part of our society that is deeply rooted in our past.

Finally, it is interesting to take note of the inexplicable double standard with regard to this controversy. In 2000, Jerry Oppenheimer reported in his biography of the Clinton marriage that Hillary Clinton’s family had a history of anti-Semitism and even that early in her career she had yelled at a Jewish aide using anti-Semitic language. Though she vehemently denied this incident, it was corroborated by multiple witnesses, including the aide himself to Oppenheimer. While this became the subject of controversy during her Senate campaign in 2000, it has not been brought up since. But the real double standard in this controversy can be found with Republican nominee John McCain. Last month, prominent pastor John Hagee endorsed McCain for president and has accompanied him on the campaign trail. Hagee has stated that Hurricane Katrina was proof “of the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans” for its tolerance of homosexuals. How is this any different than Rev. Wright’s claim that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” after 9/11? Why do John McCain and John Hagee get free passes?

In any case, Obama’s candidacy is now in jeopardy. Recent polls have shown that his national lead over Clinton has all but vanished. Though he will most likely lead Clinton in pledged delegates, her argument to superdelegates that she is more electable has become much stronger. Obama displayed his brilliance on Tuesday, and I still believe he is the best choice for president. However, despite his wishes to play above the politics of old, he just may be brought down by them.

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

This campaign, which remains ongoing, will be studied for decades. Much of the study will focus on the difficulties that Hillary Clinton has faced in the campaign after being the presumed Democratic nominee until the first contest in Iowa. (In the sprit of fairness, I am a Barack Obama supporter and have been throughout his campaign, though I do not feel that my personal preferences cloud my ability to view the campaign process objectively). With that said, I believe there are several important factors that have contributed to Hillary Clinton’s recent losing streak.

As overused of a claim it has become, Democratic voters’ desire for change has been a primary factor in Clinton’s losses. When I speak of “change” I do not mean the optimistic, lofty and often unspecified change that Obama’s campaign promises; I am simply referring to different leadership in Washington. At the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, it will be a full 20 years of Bush and Clinton in the White House-and 28 if George H. W. Bush’s time as Vice President under Ronald Reagan is counted. This year, voters are weary of extending that streak to 32 or possibly 36 years.

Former President Clinton’s actions on the campaign trail on behalf of his wife-mocking Barack Obama, admonishing the media, making comments with racial undertones and yelling at members of the crowds at rallies-have only served to help solidify voters’ skepticism. Furthermore, the relentless and bitter attacks on Hillary Clinton made during the numerous Republican debates only helped remind voters of the extreme partisanship that ruled politics during her husband’s administration and has remained through George W. Bush’s. Though Democratic voters see the 1990s as favorable and prosperous for the country, in 2008 they are looking to escape that bitter partisanship of the past and present. A major factor in Hillary’s loss in support has simply been frustration amongst voters. As time as gone on, more and more voters are expressing their desire for new leaders in the White House.

Another (perhaps equally) important factor in Hillary’s losses has been reluctance among Democratic male voters to vote for a female candidate. While the gender gap in her support has been widely reported on, the reasons behind it have not been properly explored. That many men either outright refuse or feel discomfort in voting for a woman for president at this point in our history is a shame, but it is a fact. Some of this is a conscious refusal that can only be explained by pure sexism.

However, much, if not most, of this reluctance is subconscious. This is the factor that is often overlooked in the analysis of this race. Many men feel an immediate dislike for a powerful and strong woman like Hillary Clinton who is not satisfied with the gender roles of the past. They view her ability to put up a tough fight as either intimidating or simply unlikable. They perceive her strong self-defense (e.g. responding to the Obama campaign mailers in Ohio) as whining and complaining and her attacks on her opponents as pettiness. Should a male candidate make these same attacks and remarks, they would most certainly be viewed differently. This is unfortunate but true. It is a real explanation of her lack of support among men in the United States and has been a hurdle which she has had much trouble overcoming.

Finally and pretty obviously, Barack Obama himself has been a major factor in her loss of support among voters and superdelegates. The simple fact that Barack Obama is her opponent in this race has made her campaign much more challenging. Despite their near congruence on the issues, many voters see Obama as the answer to their problem with the continued leadership in Washington. Obama, in many ways, is the antithesis of Hillary Clinton in that he is a brand new face in Washington, without a long history of controversies and partisanship. He is also exciting voters; for the first time in awhile, American voters are becoming optimistic and enthused about politics. In recent weeks, Hillary Clinton has attempted to win votes by criticizing and even mocking that optimism-a tough task that is only one of a series of poor political choices during her campaign.

Perhaps she missed her best chance to serve as president in 2004. Four years ago, many voters were wishing that they could have their vote in the 2000 election back and were looking for a third Clinton term. They couldn’t find satisfaction in the completely unspectacular John Kerry. The country was extraordinarily partisan with no desire to bridge any divides and George W. Bush won reelection. Hillary Clinton may have had a much better shot in 2004; there was no Barack Obama in the race and voters were looking for a redo election. This year, though, voters are not looking for a redo; they are looking for something brand new. Hillary Clinton may be four years too late.

However, I am a firm believer in Yogi Berra’s classic statement that, “It ain’t over ’till it’s over.” This campaign is not over, despite the media’s premature coronation of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for the general election in November. The factors for her losses of late are not overwhelming and can easily be overcome. With a win in Texas, Ohio, or both next week, she can again become the frontrunner in the race. Obama has been facing a recent backlash to his support, with many criticizing his campaign and his supporters. He may have peaked too early in the race, and it support could lessen.

This contest is a lot closer than many would like to believe, but either way it goes, its study should keep us all busy for a long time.

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

The event was a partisan spectacle; Democrats questioned Clemens tougher than their Senate counterparts had questioned Michael Mukasey during his Attorney General nomination hearing, and Republicans praised him as if he were a war hero. Also this month, Congress moved beyond professional baseball to football, when Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania demanded a personal meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to discuss the New England Patriots’ long history of cheating.

Now, I personally care about these issues, because I’m a sports fan and I can’t stand cheating. (I even wrote a column on “Spygate” just two weeks ago.) But when I heard that senators and representatives were taking it upon themselves to investigate the issue, I couldn’t help but wonder if there were more important priorities for Congress.

Of course, our elected officials in Congress have defended their inquiries. They claim that they are investigating the use of steroids among baseball stars because they are worried about the example it might set for children who look up to them. And Sen. Specter told the Associated Press that he was looking into the Patriots cheating scandal because “we have a right to honest football games.”

Don’t be fooled. These aren’t the real reasons that our representatives in Washington are involving themselves in professional sports. Exposing baseball players as steroid users does nothing but show young people that even the heroes they worship had to use steroids to succeed. And Arlen Specter cannot truly believe that not only do the American people have a right to watch honest football games but that it is his personal responsibility to protect that right.

Our elected officials do this for pretty simple reasons: they want to be on television more often, they want to meet professional athletes and they simply want to become involved in the world of sports (which many of them most likely were kept out of as children). All of this can be seen in the way that members of Congress publicly dramatize the issue and gawk over the athletes like children at the ballpark. After Roger Clemens’ hearing, he signed autographs for congressional staffers, and Arlen Specter was more than happy to theorize to media outlets that the Patriots may have cheated against his hometown favorite Philadelphia Eagles in the Super Bowl and the Pittsburgh Steelers in playoff games.

What has been accomplished by all of this? In any of these cases, has Congress succeeded in its mission to protect children or the integrity of the games? Their hearings and meetings are merely media spectacles that serve no real purpose. Why, then, is all of this necessary? With major problems such as war, America’s tactics in the war on terrorism, the slipping economy, poverty, the environment and countless others facing the country (and the world), how can this be such a high priority? And how are our elected representatives not held responsible for their extreme wastefulness of time and resources on these issues of extraordinarily minor importance?

The questions of whether baseball players have injected steroids and whether the New England Patriots cheated in the Super Bowl ought to be left to sports writers and ESPN. It is not the job of the United States Congress to investigate these issues. Our representatives need to stop being fans and start acting like elected officials in the American legislature.

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

I was lost. What was I supposed to do if I couldn’t watch these shows every night? No, I didn’t start exercising or reading. I instead replaced my shows with a whole new set of programs and other perfectly unhealthy activities.

I couldn’t bring myself to not watch television-strike or no strike. I turned to politics. I began to watch endless hours of political coverage on MSNBC, CNN and yes, even FOX News. It got to the point where I not only knew all of the pundits, commentators and journalists on all the networks by name, but I also knew who they worked for and what their opinions were before they gave them. (Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post who appears on MSNBC is a personal favorite.) With the Writers Guild on strike, my TiVo had very little to do, so I actually subscribed for a Season Pass to “Hardball with Chris Matthews.” (I think I may be one of four people who watch that show daily-and sometimes more often than that.)

But even Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Wolf Blitzer couldn’t fill the void that the writers’ strike had left. I drifted toward my computer, spending more and more time staring at the screen. I may have fully exhausted all the internet has to offer. I’ve lost track on how many games of computer solitaire I’ve played. I started to play Tetris online for hours on end, constantly trying to beat my highest score, and when I couldn’t do it, I threw things around my room in a mad rage. I soon got my roommate hooked and we have spent the past few weeks in a Tetris-hypnosis. That simple, entertaining, yet annoying game took over my brain. Throughout the day and even as I tried to sleep, I saw Tetris pieces fitting together in my head. It was a living nightmare. Do yourself a favor and stay away from freetetris.org at all costs.

What I’ve done in absence of new scripts coming out of Hollywood hasn’t been entirely detrimental, though. News of Dr. Drew’s appearance tonight reminded me of how much I loved listening to Loveline on the radio years ago when Adam Carolla co-hosted. I found a Web site which has almost every show from the era available for download (lovelinearchive.com) and have spent quite some time downloading and listening to the shows. My understandings of sexual dysfunction, the harmful effects of drug use and how Adam Carolla became “a literal millionaire” have increased tenfold.

This week, however, great news came. After 100 days of wandering around my television dial, the writers’ strike has come to an end. Finally, I’ll be able to see what happens between Clark Kent and Brainiac on Smallville and just what Alan Shore and Denny Crane will do next on Boston Legal. Finally, I’m getting my life back. I’ve gone cold turkey on Tetris and have done well since going through withdrawal (though, I’ll admit that I played a couple games of solitaire before writing this column). I’ve missed a couple days’ worth of Hardball and haven’t heard Wolf Blitzer’s blabbering in a long time. Finally, the television studios pulled through, and finally, I can have a life again. My TiVo and I are very happy.

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

As I watched the older conservatives hurl insults at Zappa for supporting such “garbage,” I began to realize how sex has always been a controversial component of popular music. I also began to realize how far we’ve come as a society in terms of what we tolerate, despite the controversies.

In 1956, Elvis Presley was the most obscene performer popular music had ever seen, because he shook his hips and made girls go crazy. He was so obscene that Ed Sullivan refused to show his hip-shaking on television in 1956 and forced his cameramen to only shoot Elvis from the waist up. That same year, a judge in Jacksonville threatened to have Elvis arrested if he shook his hips onstage.

In 1967, Jimi Hendrix shocked many of the hippies at the Monterey Pop Festival when he essentially made love to his guitar on stage (before setting it on fire). Shortly thereafter, his onstage performance frightened many preteens when his band opened for the Monkees on tour.

In 1968, John Lennon and Yoko Ono released an album called “Two Virgins” in which the two posed nude on the cover. Many copies were confiscated by state governments and most stores sold the album in brown paper bags.

After Congress intervened in the 1980s, the familiar “Parental Advisory” label became required on albums containing content deemed indecent by the Recording Industry Association of America.

And who can forget the events of this decade? Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” resulted in the largest fine the Federal Communications Commission has ever given out, and Madonna and Britney Spears’ onstage kiss caused an uproar.

Yet we still tolerate quite a lot. Lil’ Jon is free to yell “skeet skeet skeet” on the radio, and Soulja Boy can talk about super-soaking hos. I wonder what that Jacksonville judge might have to say about that.

So, where does all this leave us? Over time we’ve grown to tolerate more and more explicit sexual content in music. Where does sex in music have to go? What more is there to do? I’m not sure what will be tolerated in 20 years, but I sure can’t wait to find out.

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.

This year’s Super Bowl was, save for the Rams’ amazing victory in Super Bowl XXXIV, my personal favorite. You see, I’m a Rams fan, and for the past six years I’ve remained bitter over my team’s crushing Super Bowl loss to the New England Patriots in 2002.

I was completely distraught after that game. I took off my Rams jersey, threw it into a corner of my room and refused to touch it until the next season. The Rams entered that Super Bowl on the verge of a dynasty, with one of the greatest and most exciting offenses in NFL history. Instead, a different dynasty was born, and the Rams never recovered.

I hated the Patriots, though, not simply because they won. That entire game had the feeling that the Rams were being short-changed. Their wide receivers were being illegally held downfield throughout the entire game, without many flags from the referees, and to this day, I still hold that there were still a couple of seconds left after Vinatieri kicked that field goal for the win.

Beyond that Super Bowl, I had even more reasons. I was sick of the smugness and cockiness of the team. After the initial breaking of the “Spygate” story at the beginning of the season, New England coach Bill Belichick refused to apologize, explain or even address the issue. Earlier this season, as the Patriots were crushing opponents, they continued to run up the score, even attempting fourth down conversions when winning by multiple touchdowns in the game. Quarterback Tom Brady laughed when it was predicted by Giants receiver Plaxico Burress that the Patriots would only score 17 points in the Super Bowl, thinking it impossible for his offense to put up so few points against the Giant’s defense.

I also couldn’t stand the way that referees always seemed to give the Patriots the benefit of the doubt whenever there was a questionable call, preserving their undefeated season record (see Week 13 against Baltimore). And finally, I couldn’t stand ESPN’s sick obsession with everything Patriots. Day and night, sports fans were forced to sit through mindless discussions about whether or not Tom Brady was the greatest quarterback in history, the Patriots the greatest team ever or Bill Belichick the greatest genius in world history.

So, last week, when the Boston Herald reported that the Patriots had illegally taped the final Rams walkthrough before their Super Bowl, capturing many of the plays that the Rams planned to run in the game, my deep anger for the New England Patriots reached a level I didn’t know was possible. I instantly became one of the biggest fans of the New York Giants in the country. (All right, that’s an exaggeration, but I really wanted them to win).

Needless to say, I was a happy man on Super Bowl Sunday. Tom Brady proved that he wasn’t Joe Montana, as once he wasn’t given endless time to throw the ball by his offensive line, he fell apart. (By the way, how great was it that a guy named “Tuck” helped ruin Tom Brady’s game, Raiders fans?) New England’s cockiness finally did them in; going for it on fourth-and-13 instead of kicking the field goal in the second quarter ultimately cost them the game. Seeing the most unlikely of heroes, Eli Manning, pull off that incredible MVP-winning final drive was almost as exciting as Isaac Bruce’s 73-yard touchdown in the Rams’ Super Bowl victory was for me. And when it came time for the annoying “Brady magic,” he couldn’t produce. And finally, seeing Bill Belichick walk off of the field before the game was over (in his typical classless fashion) with his head down was a sweet sight.

My joy in the Patriots’ demise couldn’t erase the heartbreak of the Rams’ Super Bowl loss, but it sure helped. So I extend my gratitude to the world champion New York Giants for taking away what the Patriots took away from the Rams-a legacy. Thank you for crushing their overconfidence and their record and denying them even the consideration of being called the greatest team of all time.

Oh, and thank you for a great game, too.

Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at forum@studlife.com.