Look, I have a BFA in Television from NYU, and while I would be proud
to show you the paper I wrote on the merits of “Remington Steele,” I
am a bit embarrassed about the shallowness of my book-learning.
(Meanwhile, I was in the legendary Rick Rubin’s dorm room as he
invented Def Jam Records.)
My question is: did the framers realize (or plan, even) that the
60-vote cut-off-the-debate rule would allow for the occasional need
for a super-majority? Is this even in the Constitution, or is it like
a little-known codicil in the Faber charter allowing for double-secret
probation?
My point is: here’s what I hate about basketball. In the waning
moments of a game, a team may realize they have a “foul to give,’
meaning that they can foul the opposing team without suffering any
penalty. In fact, the “foul to give” can provide the offending team
with an advantage as it costs the other team seconds off the clock and
court position, since the next play begins with an inbounds pass. It
just seems wrong that manipulating a loophole in the rules should
provide any advantage.