Stringer Bell is Charles Miner

SPOILERS BELOW

The following may come as a startling revelation.

Contrary to what you think you saw at the end of season three of The Wire, Stringer Bell was NOT murdered by Omar Little and Brother Mouzone. This is by no means a suggestion that that scene was some sort of dream, but rather that Stringer indeed survived the attempt on his life. You see, as his imminent downfall became blatantly obvious to him -- between his flagrant double-crossing of trusted cohorts and his making enemies with just about everyone whose path he crossed -- Mr. Bell began taking precautions he wouldn't have otherwise needed. One of these, inevitably, was his wearing of a bullet-proof vest everywhere he went. On the day of his 2004 "murder," his paranoia effectively saved his life. So he did the smart thing -- he played dead. And, having friends in Baltimore's high places, he was able to smoothly carry about this ruse. No one knows precisely how he did it, but there are a number of possibilities, mostly involving the bribing of drivers and morgue workers. But c'mon, the dude was loaded.

The next thing Stringer Bell had to do was lose Stringer Bell. This entailed changing his name, cutting off all ties, and getting the hell out of Baltimore. With his new name, Charles Miner, he moved to New York City where he laid low for a period of five years, working odd jobs to stay afloat. He falsified his documents under his new identity -- driver's license, Social Security card, et al. -- and after enough time had passed, he began to seek higher-level employment. He made a false Bachelor's degree and an MBA. Eventually, his skills were sought by Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, whose ex-V.P. Ryan Howard left a large vacancy in the corporation's upper management. Bell/Miner interviewed for the position. His fake resume was most impressive to C.F.O. David Wallace, who was particularly interested in his stint at Satacoy Steel. (I know this company is totally fabricated because unlike Dunder Mifflin, it doesn't have a Wikipedia article.)

Charles Miner was hired in early 2009. Though his degrees were forgeries, his extensive business background working in the Barksdale organization as well as his stint at Baltimore Community College rendered him equally qualified. In his new, more legitimate profession, Miner has been using the same tactics he used in his Stringer Bell days -- the same deceit, the same eye at upward mobility.

I feel the evidence I've provided is conclusive and irrefutable. As for Beadie Russel and Holly Flax being the same person...well let's just say that's a discussion for another day.

The 2009 World Series for Mets Fans

The two teams competing for this year's World Series title seem to together represent the worst possible combination for fans of the New York Metropolitans, of which I am one. On the one hand, you have the Phillies -- the Mets' bitter NL East rivals for the past few years (the Mets' 2009 season notwithstanding). On the other hand, you have the Yankees -- New York's perpetual overachievers, whose fans' condescension is the bane of many Mets fans' existences. Thus, this year's World Series equates to the Mets' divisional rivals versus their geographical rivals.

So what is a fan of the listless Mets to do? To whom should he or she pledge allegiance? Or should we all just sit this year's series out? Well, I've thought of an analogy with which to address these questions.

Let's wind the clocks back to last year's presidential election. I supported and voted for now-President Barack Obama in both the primary and general election, but let's assume, for argument's sake, I supported Hillary Clinton. In this analogy, Clinton will represent the Mets, Obama the Phillies, and John McCain the Yankees. The NL and AL are the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively, and winning the pennant is equivalent to winning either party's nomination.

With all this in mind, here's the scenario: I'm a passionate Clinton supporter, embittered by her loss to Barack Obama. I can do one of three things: reconcile my personal feelings and vote Democrat, carry my bitterness into the general election and vote for McCain against my political ideology, or simply abstain from voting altogether. (Voting third party doesn't work with this analogy!) Being a supporter of the democratic system, I immediately remove the third option from consideration. Moreover, believing that political ideology trumps any candidate's own personal qualities, I throw out the second option as well. I will support Barack Obama.

Consequently, I will immediately disregard the option of sitting out this year's World Series, being that my love of baseball supersedes my love of the Mets.

Now here's where the analogy becomes strained -- are the NL and AL ideologically distinctive enough to be analogized with the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively? The answer, initially, would appear to be no. However, one must consider the single major difference between the two leagues: the AL's use of a designated hitter. The DH is a rule to which I am ideologically opposed. I find it to be contradictory to the nature of the sport. I am as stringent in this position as I am in my support of abortion rights. So just as I could never support John McCain for being pro-life, I could never support the AL pennant winner so long as they employ a DH. I will instead have to reconcile my bitterness in the name of the sport I love, and support the team who I feel more closely resembles my ideology and my values.

I will support the Phillies in this year's World Series.