The Chicago Bears are not the monsters of anything currently.

Sorry, I have to mock as a Vikings fan, and as a Vikings fan, I don’t have a lot else to be happy about.

Also, New Jersey has its own football team.

It does?

Once upon a time the Dodgers were the Brooklyn Dodgers rather than the New York Dodgers, but at least that was a matter of specificity. (The Yankees are, sadly, not officially the Bronx Yankees, although it would be excellent fodder for crude jokes if they were.)

When the Dodgers were founded, Brooklyn was still an independent city, not part of New York City. The Yanks (who originally played on Manhattan anyway) and Mets are on firm ground there.

The Angels originally played for a few years in the city of Los Angeles (at Wrigley Field and Dodger Stadium). They want to take back the "Los Angeles" name to better market themselves to people who actually live in the city of LA, as opposed to just the O.C.

I guess I understand why even though they play outside the city, it’s the Detroit Pistons rather than the Auburn Hills Pistons but if your team has been the Anaheim Angels for years now, and in fact plays in Anaheim, which is also a major city, you should not get to change your name to the LA Angels for no good reason.

Well there's always the Golden State Warriors. Talk about wussy. In the A's and Raiders you have two teams who (a) are proud to be in Oakland and (b) have won multiple world championships.

as a Vikings fan, I don’t have a lot else to be happy about.

Hee!! Go Pack!!

On the bright side, I really don't think Tice will be back next year.

New Jersey has basketball and hockey, but that's all.

Sorry, I have to mock as a Vikings fan, and as a Vikings fan, I don’t have a lot else to be happy about.

I'm a Vikings fan too, and I'm treading pretty lightly on the mock front these days, considering how horrible our team is when the other team shows up.

ETA:

On the bright side, I really don't think Tice will be back next year.

I don't blame the coach, and he did just get his contract renewed. The O-line needs to be able to run block, and the linebacking corps needs, uh, replaced. Then we'll be respectable.

In the A's and Raiders you have two teams who (a) are proud to be in Oakland and (b) have won multiple world championships.

Except for the years where the Raiders moved to Los Angeles, you mean.

New Jersey has basketball and hockey, but that's all.

And apparently the Nets are moving to Brooklyn.

Except for the years where the Raiders moved to Los Angeles, you mean.

Yep. And frankly I wish they'd stayed, because they totally fucked up the Oakland Coliseum when they came back. It was never a great place to watch baseball, but now that it's enclosed it really sucks.

Huh. I thought spousal privilege meant that you weren't forced to testify against your spouse, not that you weren't allowed to.

Maryland makes a distinction between marital communications privilege and spousal privilege. This is the way I understand it:

Marital communications privilege means if one spouse tells the other something in confidence during their marriage the "hearing" spouse is prohibited from testifying about the contents of the conversation even if the parties are no longer married. This privilege is held by the "speaking" spouse - and the theory is - he or she had an expectation of privacy when he or she communicated said information to his/her spouse. Similar to the expectation one has when communicated with one's attorney and similary it is the client who holds the privilege. The "hearing" spouse may testify about activities (that were not communications) or conversations that were not private.

Spousal privilege means that a spouse cannot be forced to testify about his/her spouse - both conversations and activities. The theory is - the government shouldn't intrude on the relationship. This privilege is held by the spouse being called to testify and he/she may choose to waive it at his/her discretion. This privilege does not apply if the couple is no longer married so ex-husbands/ex-wives can be forced to testify against their exes (with the exception of private marital communications for which the privilege is held by the ex.)

Hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.