Why Are You So Bad At Your Job?

I've been thinking about this for a while and game 6 of the NBA finals was sort of a tipping point for me.  First, Tony Parker clearly got pushed when he tried to make a game winning shot at the end of regulation.  He also flopped, but still, he was fouled first.  Then, Manu Ginobili got mauled by more than one Miami player on his way to attempting a lay-up near the end of overtime.  Manu also took about 4 steps.  Neither one of those things drew a whistle.  Then Danny Green got tackled by Chris Bosh while trying to make a game tying three at the buzzer.  Van Gundy commented that he was OK with the no call but "is that a foul in the first 46 minutes of the game? Definitely!".  That's not how rules work Jeff!

Quick sidenote on the NBA finals.  I guess I'm rooting for the Spurs, but I kind of don't like either of these teams and I feel like neither outcome will save me from a summer of having to hear about Lebron all the time, so I mostly don't care who wins. 

Anyway, back to the point...why is it so hard to find competent officiating for major professional sports?  It's an honest question.  I sometimes feel like the NBA is secretly only allowed to recruit referees from prisons that are full of prisoners whose crimes somehow related to their complete inability to understand the rules of basketball.

Before we get to actual sports though, a quick honorable mention for soccer.  We'll talk about the NBA more in a little bit and when we do, just remember that flopping started in soccer.  Soccer referees throughout the world were so incompetent at discerning the difference between an actual foul and a flop that flopping became something of a soccer tradition, like 0-0 ties or standing around and not doing anything while the game is actually happening.  The influx of European players to the NBA was immediately accompanied by the advent of NBA flopping (I'm looking at you Vlade Divac).  There's no excuse for American referees to be just as useless as European soccer referees, but still, like most things, some of this is all soccer's fault.

Let's start with the NHL because, as usual, hockey is better than everything else.  I honestly can't remember the last time I walked away from a hockey game thinking that the officials had influenced the outcome of the game in any real way.  Hockey officials are the exception that prove the rule.  You could read this and say I just hate all referees, and you could be right, except you're not, because I don't hate hockey refs.

To be fair, there's definitely some built in advantage here.  Most hockey calls are relatively subjective and the NHL has taken concrete action in the rules to avoid flopping and exaggerating to get calls.  Also, most hockey commentators are Canadian, so they're generally pretty nice abooot stuff and they don't kill the refs too much even when they do miss a call. 

Hockey officials also get extra bonus points because A) if you count each skate individually, hockey players are carrying three deadly weapons at all times and B) hockey officials have to know how to skate, making them the only officials I can think of who actually have a skill. 

One more important point here.  Since, when you grow up, you learn that none of your dreams actually come true, I don't live in Canada.  Our syrupy neighbors to the north take hockey at least as seriously as we take football, and I imagine that if I were to walk into a Winnipeg sports bar in January I'd hear Canadians using their awesome accents to politely complain about all the bad calls in last night's Jets game.  So maybe it's all just a matter of perspective. 

Speaking of football, the NFL is sort of a mixed bag.  On one hand, I feel like there's been a disputable or debatable call on every football play I've ever seen.  The NFL provides a constant stream of questionable officiating, and I'm not sure I've ever fully agreed with a call in an NFL game. 

But the thing is, I'm not sure I've ever fully disagreed with a call in an NFL game either.  Officiating football is really hard.  Take a look at the basic situation for NFL refs:
-Players basically assault each other on every play and it's perfectly legal...
-except for the quarterback, who has like one square foot of area where you're allowed to touch him.  -I'm not sure if anybody in the world is 100% clear on when you're allowed to hit a receiver.
-Commentators constantly point out that there's holding on every play, which seems true enough, but you obviously can't call it on every play. 
-The rules change slightly every time someone gets another concussion.
-And there are all these complicated extra rules about eligible receivers and things happening down-field and whatnot. 

It's a lot, is what I'm saying.  Watching a group of guys try to properly officiate an NFL game is a lot like watching your dog try to work the microwave.  He's not going to get it right, but it's not really his fault either.  Plus it's football, so it's not like we're going to stop watching, so who really cares.

Now we come to baseball and this is where I start to get annoyed.  Baseball umpires have the easiest job I could possibly imagine.  First of all, most baseball rules were written 150 years ago.  People were less creative back then, so you have really simple rules like "if the ball beats the runner to first base, the runner is out" or "if a fielder catches the ball before it hits the ground, the batter is out" or "women aren't allowed to vote", etc. 

Secondly, if baseball were moving any slower, the games would be happening in reverse.  Baseball umpires are the only officials I can think of that literally never have to worry about watching more than one thing at the same time, and that's because there are four of them (six in the post-season) and there's almost never more than one thing happening at the same time.  Unlike other sports, baseball doesn't really have things happening off the ball that the officials have to worry about.

So, to recap, the job of a baseball umpire can be summed up as "watching the shiny ball and describing what happens around it".  And yet, way too many baseball umpires are just terrible at it.  I honestly feel like you could train four smart horses to umpire a baseball game and you wouldn't necessarily notice the difference in call quality.  I'm also 100% sure baseball umpires could be 100% replaced by some well placed sensors, a locator chip in the ball and a computer.  Why haven't we done this yet?

Finally, we come to the NBA.  Why is every basketball game I watch an officiating catastrophe?  I don't even know where to start.  You get two steps when you pick up your dribble.  TWO!  Can NBA referees not count to three?  I could replace NBA refs with the smartest kids in a nursery school and get better calls on traveling violations.

And the blocking/charging calls.  I know, that's not so easy, but still.  If you put me in a room where I couldn't see the game and just told me whenever there was a blocking/charging call situation and I just flipped a coin to decide which one to call, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between my results and the results we get from NBA refs.  You know I'm right about that.

And the flopping.  So much flopping, so easy to fix.  Just stop making the calls.  Next time a defender dives to the ground like he was shot trying to draw a charge, don't call a charge, or a block.  Just let them keep playing so the offense gets two points because one of the guys on defense is rolling around on the floor like a moron. 

And then there's Lebron.  Yes, Lebron gets his own paragraph because watching NBA referees officiate Lebron is one of the most frustrating things I've ever seen in sports.  Every time Lebron goes to the basket he uses his off hand to clear out his defender (which is super effective for him, because he might be the strongest person in the history of everything).  Not only does he never get called for this, but half the time the defender gets called for a foul for viciously assaulting Lebron's left elbow with his face.  I sometimes think NBA referees all have a secret memo from David Stern which reads, in part, "Our research shows that people like watching Lebron score, so if you see anyone trying to stop him from doing that, just call them for something, we don't really care what". 

You know why people can't stop spinning conspiracy theories about the NBA using officials to manipulate games and playoff series results?  It's because people watching are just trying to think of a plausible explanation for how the officiating could be so consistently awful.  And the most frustrating part is, we never get an explanation.  Why are referees the only people in the world who never have to be accountable for their job performance?  Why don't they have to do a press conference at the end of the game like coaches and players do?  Just once, I'd like to see a reporter get to raise his hand in a press room and ask the lead official of an NBA crew "Why are you so bad at your job?" 

Little Things

Why is it that the NHL seems to be able to nail all the little things, but is completely incapable of getting any of the big things right?  Tonight I watched game 7 between the Rangers and Senators (I tried to watch the Panthers/Devils game 7 too, but I just couldn't bring myself to care so I did this instead).  At the beginning of the game was the traditional singing of the anthems, for both the United States and Canada (because, apparently, Ottawa is the capital of Canada.  How adorable, they have a capital and a song and everything). 

Did they get some idiot-ass pop star to sing the anthems?  Or some stupid little kid?  Hell no!  It was some grumpy-looking old dude who looked like he should be taking your hat at the Bada Bing.  Nailed it!  The NHL gets a lot of these little things right.  New rules to make the game better after the lock-out, overtime shoot-outs so sports fans never have to endure another tie (unless Bud Selig decides to ruin another all-star game, or unless you count soccer fans as sports fans, which I obviously don't), the way Canadian announcers pronounce the name Hossa.  Nailed!  Nailed!  Nailed!

You could argue that rule changes were a big thing, but then that would ruin my whole premise so shut up please.  All of these good little things just serve to infuriate me more when they screw up the big things.  Like, why would you allow your playoffs to be scheduled in such a way that two of your game sevens have to go head to head with the first round of the NFL draft?  The one night between the superbowl and September when the NFL comes back to completely dominate sports TV.  Even if you went up against the 2nd and 3rd rounds you'd have a fighting chance.  Nobody cares about those anyway. 

Quick sidenote, what's with the NFL's hard-on for Thursdays?  I loved the old Saturday-Sunday drafts.  They went on forever, the whole second day with the B team commentators was hilarious, it was just a fun weekend.  Now, the draft starts on Thursday, which meant I had to try flipping back and forth between fantastic episodes of Community and 30 Rock and the draft just to keep up with what was going on.  Who knows how many idiotic things Chris Berman said that I'll never get to hear.  I flipped over once and caught the end of him screaming incoherently, but about what?  I'll never know...I'll NEVER know.

Plus, we're heading toward a season in which we have Thursday games almost every week.  Thursday games are the worst.  They ruin my fantasy team and the games themselves are always terrible because the players are all only half-healed from the week before.  WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH ROGER GODDELL AND THURSDAYS???  I hate this shit more than anything else in sports right now!  Where was I?

Oh yeah, hockey.  See?  The NHL can't even keep my attention for more than three paragraphs, and I love hockey.  Playoff scheduling isn't the only problem.  Why do they continue to insist upon wearing dark jerseys at home now?  I hate that almost as much as I hate Thursday football.  It doesn't look right and it never will.  How stupid did it look in Phoenix when the crowd did the white-out for playoff games (awesome gimmick, by the way), but the home team was wearing red?  Very stupid, is the answer to my query. 

And why is there still a team in Phoenix anyway? or San Jose? or Anaheim? or Tampa? or Miami? or Carolina? or Columbus, OH (the fact that I have to add OH there because otherwise you wouldn't know what I was talking about because nobody gives a shit about Columbus except Ohio State fans pretty much illustrates my point).  I could go on and on. 

The point is, I don't see why the NHL can't fix these problems.  Move the San Jose team to Quebec.  Combine the Anaheim and Columbus franchises and move them to Saskatoon or Regina (I feel like they should call the team the Saskatoon Saskatoons).  Move the Florida Panthers to Seattle (seriously, why hasn't Seattle ever had a hockey team?  Is it too close to Vancouver?  What am I missing?).  Move Carolina back to Hartford (obviously).  Move the Phoenix team to some other city in Ontario.  I honestly believe Ontario could support 8 NHL teams if we asked them to.

Then, you just let them wear white at home, like they're supposed to, and try not to schedule your best games when nobody is watching.  How hard is that?  I guess what I'm saying is, I would enjoy being King of the NHL (which is a better title than commissioner, which is obviously useless), and they should probably hire me now.  Gary Bettman can have my job if he wants it.

Tea Party Conversations: Health Care

Generic Republican: The government wants to give you health care.
Prospective Tea Person: That's awesome, I need some health care. Thanks for the good news, mysterious stranger.
Generic Republican: No, this is a bad thing, you should be angry about this.
Prospective Tea Person: What? Why?
Generic Republican: The government wants to give you health care.
Prospective Tea Person: Ohhhhhh...wait, I'm still not following you.
Generic Republican: The government wants to force you to buy health insurance.
Prospective Tea Person: But they don't have to force me, I want health insurance.
Generic Republican: But what if you didn't.
Prospective Tea Person: But I do.
Generic Republican: Yeah, but what if you didn't.
Prospective Tea Person: I'm still not following you.
Generic Republican: Right now, you have the freedom to choose health insurance coverage...
Prospective Tea Person: Right...
Generic Republican: ...but the government is going to start providing health insurance to people, and then private providers won't be able to compete with the government's low premiums, so they'll go out of business, and then you won't have a choice.
Prospective Tea Person: ...Oh...
Generic Republican: They're taking away your freedom to choose.
Prospective Tea Person: ...but I like freedom.
Generic Republican: Of course you do.
Prospective Tea Person: But it still sounds like I'll end up with health insurance that's cheaper than what I have now.
Generic Republican: No, what you'll end up with is socialized medicine.
Prospective Tea Person: What does that mean?
Generic Republican: It means the government will come between you and your doctor, ration care and decide who gets life saving procedures and who doesn't.
Prospective Tea Person: Don't insurance companies do that now anyway?
Generic Republican: What you're talking about is just the free market at work, I'm talking about socialism.
Generic Republican: I'm also talking about government funded abortions.
Prospective Tea Person: Wait..what? 
Generic Republican: When the government takes over health care, they'll use your tax dollars to fund abortions.
Prospective Tea Person: But I'm against abortion.
Generic Republican: Sure you are, all good Americans are.
Prospective Tea Person: It's not OK to use my tax dollars for something I don't like, that makes me angry.
Generic Republican: And you know what else? Socialized medicine will make us just like Europe and Canada.
Prospective Tea Person: Well I don't like Europe, but my friends from Canada say they get great health care.
Generic Republican: No, that's just a liberal myth.  Canadians have to wait months to see doctors, and their doctors aren't as good as ours. 
Prospective Tea Person: But what if I'm sick right now?  I can't wait months to see a doctor.
Generic Republican: No you can't. 
Prospective Tea Person: But what about the tens of millions of people in America that don't have health insurance?  Won't the government's plan get them covered?
Generic Republican: First of all, liberals have been exaggerating the number of people without health coverage for years so they can build support for their government take over...
Prospective Tea Person: Oh...
Generic Republican: ...and besides that, people in America aren't really going without health care.  Anyone can just walk into an emergency room right now and get treatment when they need it.
Prospective Tea Person: But isn't health care expensive?  Isn't that why we need insurance in the first place?  How do people pay for their emergency room visits without insurance?
Generic Republican: Well, if the government would just get out of the way and let the free market work, the cost of health care would go down and then people could afford it.
Prospective Tea Person: But before you said the free market is already at work.
Generic Republican: But it could be more at work.  We need lower taxes, less bureaucracy and less regulation so we can grow the economy for people while simultaneously allowing insurance companies to lower prices.
Prospective Tea Person: What do lower taxes have to do with anything?
Generic Republican: Well, a government take over of health care would eventually result in a big tax hike to pay for it.
Prospective Tea Person: But I already pay so much in taxes.
Generic Republican: I know, and the government wants to make you pay even more for their unconstitutional take over of health care.
Prospective Tea Person: Unconstitutional?
Generic Republican: Yup, the government can't make you buy things.
Prospective Tea Person: They make me buy car insurance.
Generic Republican: That's different, you choose to have a car.
Prospective Tea Person: But they're still making me buy something.
Generic Republican: Trust me, it's very different.
Prospective Tea Person: I'm angry and confused.
Generic Republican: Welcome to the tea party, let's get you a George Washington wig!
Tea Person: Yeah!

Tips For New Hockey Fans

I'm happy to say that hockey has finally returned to my TV. My jobs have always required me to live on college campuses and take whatever cable package the students get, but not anymore! Now I have a new job, my own apartment and the NHL center ice package. I'm psyched, and I want other people to be psyched too. I probably know a lot of people who aren't hockey fans, and you're missing a great deal of awesome. So, here are some helpful tips, so you can get into this under-appreciated sport and enjoy the awesome awesomeness.

1) Pick A Team
This may sound difficult, but it can actually be pretty easy. Turn on your television machine and flip around a bit tonight. Do you see some hockey? If you do, your city/state probably already has a hockey team. Bam! Done.

If your city or state doesn't have a ready-made team you can root for, or if your city/state's hockey team suffers from an incurable case of suckitis, it gets a little tougher. Last year, I picked a team for myself in response to the many unforgivable sins of the New York Islanders, feel free to consult that blog entry for a method.

2) Learn About Canada
A lot of hockey players are from Canada. Also, hockey is the national sport up there, and they're not screwing around. I got to see opening night in Toronto on center ice and holy crap! Opening night of the NHL season is like 10 superbowls up there. You can't watch a lot of hockey if you don't understand Canada.

For example, did you know Canada has universal health care? That's right, if you get sick in Canada, you go to a hospital and, free of charge, a moose kicks you until whatever you were complaining about doesn't hurt anymore. Also, in Canada, it snows 378 days a year. "gee Sean, those things don't sound true." Really? Which one of us is the hockey fan here? I rest my case.

3) Learn The Rules
Now that you have a team and you know enough about Canada to keep up, you can start watching some games. This is when it becomes important to know the many rules involved with hockey. A lot of them are pretty much in line with other sports you already know, or pretty intuitive. You can't trip people, you can't hit somebody in the head from behind when he's not looking, you can't use your stick to slash another guy's legs.

Some of the other rules might catch you off guard if you aren't prepared. For example, in most sports, if you were to, say, go up to another player and punch him in the face, you'd be thrown out of the game and probably fined. In hockey, you go sit quietly for five minutes ("and you feel shame") and then all is forgiven.

4) Learn To Love The World
As a good American, you probably hate most of the rest of the world, especially Europe and Russia. As a hockey fan, you'll have to get over it. The NHL has Europeans and Russians all over the place. The team you pick will most likely have at least a few of both. I know the rest of the world is a bunch of stupid smarty-pants jerks who we should never listen to, but when it comes to hockey, we need to learn to deal with each other.

5) Learn The History
As the season winds down, you'll hear hockey people starting to talk about trophies. The MVP of the league gets the Hart trophy, obviously named after pro wrestler and Canadian national treasure Bret "the Hitman" Hart. Hockey has a lot of trophies like that, presumably all named after Canadian pro wrestlers, and you'll feel better once you know who they are.

6) Clear Your Schedule
If you read my blog often, you've already heard me mention the hockey playoffs. I can't even think of a word to describe the hockey playoffs, and I love words, look how many I'm using right now. The point is, from mid-April through late June, clear your TV calendar, because the playoffs are on. And if I catch you watching American Idol or Grey's Anatomy instead of the Western Conference semi-finals, you'd better start running.

Guardians Of The Secret

About three years ago, a friend of mine told me she was a fan of Jackson Pollock's work. I asked if she'd ever seen the movie about Pollock starring Ed Harris. She said she didn't think there really was a movie like that because, if there was, she would have seen it. This presented me with a golden opportunity. By purchasing this movie for my friend, I got to do something nice and be right about something at the same time. That's a perfect storm for me, so I went to Amazon.com, got the movie and gave it to her.

Since then, without fail, Amazon.com sends me an e-mail anytime something new goes on sale that's related to Jackson Pollock, or artists, or art, or colors, or really anything that can be connected in any way to my one purchase. I always laugh a little when I get the e-mails. How do they decide who gets what e-mails? Do they just send me an e-mail every once in a while that tells me about whatever new things are closest to my previous purchase, even if they aren't that close? Or are there certain parameters, and I get an e-mail whenever something new falls into those parameters?

I don't know, and I don't really care either, but I thought of those questions when I heard about the new immigration reform law in Arizona. As I understand it, Arizona law enforcement will be able to ask anyone for identification, specifically proof of U.S. citizenship, if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person might be an undocumented immigrant.

How will they define reasonable suspicion? What will the parameters be? Will they post a Spanish language billboard for free dinero at the police station and arrest anyone who shows up? Will they just stop anyone who seems muy caliente? How exactly does one go about acting like they're here illegally? This seems like a poorly thought out idea. I'm not here to complain about Arizona though. I'm a states rights guy and if they want to try a terrible idea, that's their problem.

On a related topic, Congress is talking about taking on national immigration reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to make it the next issue after financial reform. Alternatively, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is all but begging Reid not to do it. Yesterday, I heard Senator McConnell say that we currently have very high unemployment and we have serious border security issues, so this isn't the time for immigration reform. Wait, what? That sounds like a great time for immigration reform.

Democrats don't really care about immigration, they don't even want a bill. They just want the argument so they can call Republicans racists. It might work too, because some of those guys are racists. Republicans don't really care either, and a lot of them would probably support a bill on immigration reform, but they don't want the argument, because it'll give the Democrats a chance to call them racists.

I think Republicans picture a future time when the mood of the country is different and they can win an immigration reform argument by accusing Democrats of being hippies and leaving the borders open in the name of rainbows and moonbeams, but they know that time isn't now. I also think both parties have a secret. There's actually not a whole lot we can do about illegal immigration from Mexico. Here are some bad ideas that won't work:

#1 That idiot-ass border fence
When I was a kid, there was a fence between the house my family lived in and the neighbors' house. It was literally ten feet out of my way to walk around it. How many times did I climb the fence just for the hell of it? Hundreds, maybe thousands, I don't know, I lost count by the time I turned seven. I know we're building a better fence then the one I climbed as a kid, but unless we're building a magic fence, I'm pretty confident the clever Mexicans will find a way around our super awesome fence technology.

#2 Armed rednecks patrolling the border
I know, if America has a problem that can't be solved by armed rednecks, we may be in trouble. I didn't say I had good news, I'm just telling you what I know. Putting the actual military at the border might work, but they're busy trying to restore order to countries we invaded.

#3 Laws that allow police to ID anyone with brown skin, or a nice tan
I expect the Arizona law to get destroyed in a courtroom somewhere before it ever goes into effect. I hope they televise the case just so I can see if the judge laughs at the people defending it. You never know with judges these days, but I wouldn't get my hopes up for that law.

It's an equilibrium problem. Living in America is awesome, everyone wants to be here, plenty of room to succeed. Mexico, not so much, lots of pressure to leave. So, people will keep flowing from Mexico to America until we reach some kind of equilibrium. This is why you don't see thousands of undocumented Canadians running around putting syrup on everything and robbing people in Minnesota at hockey stick-point. Life in Canada is pretty cool. That leaves us with two things we actually could do...

Possible Solution #1: Fix Mexico
This is the better of the two solutions, but it isn't going to happen. I don't know how much money it would take to make life in Mexico comparable to life in the U.S., but since we're, ya know, massively in debt, I know we don't have it. I guess we could borrow money from China and Japan and give it to Mexico, but I'm not sure how much overall good that would do. This brings us to...

Possible Solution #2: Break America
There are plenty of ways to do this.
-We could do away with our currency and switch to an entirely cheese-based economy (that sounds delicious, doesn't it? Different cheeses would be worth different amounts. It would actually be pretty awesome at first, but eventually it would fail because we'd eat all the money).
-We could genetically engineer an army of killer zombies and unleash them on ourselves.
-We could allow the big banks to use campaign contributions to control both political parties, and therefore the government, leading to an endless cycle of economic failures at the hands of the economic equivalent of war profiteers. (wait, we're already doing that one? Uh oh). I probably won't get a lot of support for possible solution #2.

(Sidenote: I don't really have anything against actual bankers. I interned at a big bank in grad school. Everyone has to make a living, there are plenty of good, regular people working in the financial sector and it isn't their fault that the system is a mess)

I guess there's a third possibility. We could invade Mexico. If you wait around long enough, I'm sure you'll see some intrepid young President come up with an excuse to invade Mexico (manifest destiny!), but until then, like I said, there's nothing we can do.

U.S...Eh?

I've done this with football and baseball already, I wonder if this would work with hockey. Let's find out. Also, there's a NASCAR race going on one channel over, so maybe we'll check in on that from time to time.

The highlight of the pre-game show was a quick interview with Canadian Prime Minister Don Cherry (I may be a little off on his job title, whatever). They had him in some sort of dimly lit room, I think so his outfit didn't blind anyone. The lowlight? A miracle on ice highlight package. Maybe it's because I'm not old enough to remember it, but I couldn't be more tired of hearing about that. Yes, I get it, we beat the Russians. Good for us. Another great triumph over a nation that could barely feed itself. Hooray.

The venue for most of the hockey has been Canada Hockey Place. Isn't that sort of like saying "the part of America where people are fat". Is anywhere in Canada not a hockey place? No matter how this game ends, I don't see a lot of people in Canada going to work tomorrow, I guess is what I'm saying.

The teams are just sort of feeling each other out for the first chunk of the first period. I think this is why hockey has trouble getting new fans. If you've never seen a hockey game before, it's hard not to get bored with these long periods of skating back a forth with nothing really notable happening. If I had to pick a key player for the U.S., I think it'd be Phil Kessel. I really like Kessel, he's fast, a playmaker. I think a U.S. win involves a goal or a least a big play from Kessel.

I feel like, if I ever date a Canadian girl, I'll never be able to break up with her. I would enjoy a Canadian accent in my life so much, I don't think there would be anything she could do to get rid of me.

I do not like the U.S. uniforms, at all. The blue is too dark, and the white helmets are ridiculous. And there's hardly any red at all. What's up with that? If they gave out medals for uniforms, the U.S. would definitely not win.

Ryan Callahan and Chris Drury are playing on the same line for the U.S. Rangers fans can tell you that line won't be scoring any goals. That reminds me, I don't know if I can go back to watching Rangers and Devils games after this. I may need a quick buffer period before I go back to the NHL.

1-0 Canada! There's absolutely no noticeable run up to most hockey goals. Things are just sort of gliding along and then BAM!, there's a goal. Scored by Jonathan Toews (pronounced Tays, um, OK). Shortly after, the U.S. took a penalty on a tripping call I didn't love. Power play! Power plays are the best. This particular Canadian power play was uneventful, good kill by the U.S.

So the first period ends 1-0 Canada. Not the most eventful period. The U.S. doesn't really look aggressive enough. Last Sunday they were all over the Canadians with the forecheck. Today? Not so much. Sounds like Milbury agrees with me, based on his long involvement with the Islanders, I'm not sure I should feel good about that. Also, they just mentioned that, during the pre-game, Roenick said this was maybe the most important hockey game ever. Calm down, big guy.

Quick NASCAR look-in. Hmmm, the cars seem to just be going around in a big circle. Must be warm-ups or something. I did learn that today's race is in Las Vegas. So, Vegas is full of rednecks this weekend. I feel like "NASCAR weekend in Vegas" is a good reality show we're missing out on. Still going around in circles. We'll check back later.

By the way, wouldn't zamboni races be an awesome winter Olympic event? They could have timed races, like speed skating, and some head-to-head events. People would love this, it would be at least as popular as curling. You know I'm right about this. Are you telling me you wouldn't watch that? I don't believe you.

Nice stop by Miller on Iginla after a turnover. The second period is looking a lot like the first period so far. By the way, if any of the other teams were in this game instead of the U.S. and Canada, the names would prevent me from even trying to do this. I don't think I could spell Ovechkin correctly if you gave me six chances.

Another Canadian power play. That one looked better than the last one, but no goal. The U.S. blocks a ton of shots. That must hurt so much. I'm honestly not sure I could do that. Anyway, good kill by the U.S. and they get their own power play immediately after.

The U.S. power play was a bit of a mess, and shortly after, BAM! 2-0 Canada. That happens so often in hockey, successful penalty kill followed by a goal. U.S. goalie Ryan Miller has the "hey, what happened to all those goals we were scoring" face going. This isn't looking great for the U.S. right now, they're starting to put the Molson on ice. But, the U.S. just got another power play. This one's pretty important, I feel like they need a goal here.

That power play was awful, at least until the last 30 seconds. It's also getting a little chippy out there. Too bad there's no fighting in the Olympics. In the NHL, this would be a perfect time for the Americans to pick a fight and try to get some energy going.

They're not doing any commercials during the game, good job by NBC. Two funny things. First, this turns the intermissions into commercial torture chambers. Second, the players still seem to be taking commercial breaks. Right now we just got a random 90 second stoppage in play for no particular reason.

And then....BAM! 2-1 Canada. Nice deflection by Kesler on a Kane wrist shot. Other than Miller, I think Patrick Kane has easily been the best American player in this tournament. The announcers just pointed out that the U.S. scoring play was offside. Can someone pour them a nice glass of shut the hell up?

The Americans just missed tying the game by maybe six inches, maybe less. Then Canada missed a 3-1 lead by no more than 3 inches. It's really hard to do hockey justice in words. The action just builds slowly, every minute is just a little more exciting than the last one. As we end the second period, it's 2-1 Canada. I use the word awesome a lot (I think it's because I grew up near the beach), but awesome doesn't begin describe what's about to happen.

Another quick NASCAR check. Circles...circles...circles. OK, enough. I kid because I care, I actually don't mind NASCAR. It's sad that NASCAR eventually has to be a casualty of us running out of oil. Those cars get like one mile per gallon. I wonder if they'll try it with electric cars or bicycles for a year before they give up.

The Americans forgot to bring the momentum they had with them at the end of the second period with them for the third. Canada was sort of in charge of the first five minutes, and then another commercialess commercial break. Sidney Crosby's making me a little nervous right now. He hasn't done anything great yet, he rarely gets through a game without doing something amazing.

Great stop by Miller on Heatley at about the ten minute mark. I really thought Canada had one there. Canada is still in charge and the Americans are running out of time. I think I'd start double shifting the Kane line, they've been great all tournament. The crowd is starting to buzz a little more. I'd honestly feel sorry for Canada if the U.S. pulls this one out.

Nice shift by the Kessel line, I'm still keeping an eye on him. Under six minutes, still no big pushes from the Americans. Under five minutes now, and another commercial free commercial break. Could this game end 2-1? I didn't think so ten minutes ago, now I'm starting to wonder.

OH MAN! Breakaway by Crosby, great pursuit by Kane and Crosby really didn't get a shot. How close was that? Hockey is just the shit. This is better than 10 superbowls and 30 NBA finals.

OK, about a minute and a half to go and Miller just went to the bench for one of the best phrases in all of sports, the extra attacker. Looks like the U.S. is finishing with the Kane line plus Parise and OHHHHHHHHH! 2-2! Parise banged one in off a rebound and, holy crap, we're getting gold medal game overtime. Every other channel on the TV should stop whatever it's doing and let people watch this. Roenick summed it up best; "someone is about to be a national hero". Roenick is super pumped right now, he may need a sedative.

So, umm, I'm gonna go watch some hockey now. I'll be back to tell you how it ends.

What did I say about Crosby? Gold medal winning goal, right in the middle of overtime. Man, tough break for the Americans, but a silver beats expectations for them and they don't have anything to feel bad about, Canada just had a little more talent. I can't wait to see the medal ceremony, this Canadian crowd is in full riot mode. Also, this was, absolutely, the best thing that's ever happened on my TV.

Olympic Carnival

The Winter Olympics got me again. This happens every four years, just like the World Cup. I spend four years complaining about the Olympics, about how all the events suck except the hockey and how it interrupts my favorite TV shows. Then, when it actually comes around, I watch at least one hour of it everyday, plus the hockey. Why? Because most of the events, odd as they may be, are still sports, which is better than most of the other crap on TV. Especially when House, NCIS, The Office and 30 Rock all take the two Olympic weeks off. So I've been watching. Here's what I've learned.

I learned the Olympic hockey competition is, quite literally, the perfect sporting event. There's absolutely nothing you could do to make it better. This is especially true when you have the event in Canada. Canadians feel the same way about hockey as Americans feel about bacon. Every game has a great crowd that knows exactly what's going on and when to cheer. Even better, the players totally give a crap. This is why Olympic hockey is soooo much better than Olympic basketball. Of course, I'd put money on the NHL figuring out a way to screw this up by not having NHL players at the 2014 games in Russia. Gary Bettman is like the Michael Scott of sports commissioners. Did he win his job in a contest?

While we're here, quick predictions for the hockey medal round. I like Canada over Slovakia. I think Slovakia is a pretty underrated team and I've liked them every time I've seen them play, but they can't hang with the Canadians. I like the U.S. over Finland. Finland plays solid hockey and Kiprusoff looked really good against the Czechs, but I really like this U.S. team and Ryan Miller's been solid. Close game, maybe overtime, but I like the U.S.

Slovakia vs. Finland makes an interesting bronze medal game. I'll take Finland. I think Slovakia might actually have more talent, but Finland has the goaltending advantage and I think that gets them at least a bronze. Finally, I like Canada for the gold. I know, the U.S. already beat them. First, this will be for a gold medal, the crowd will be nuts right from the opening face-off (I'm looking forward to this game already, please Finland and Slovakia, don't ruin this for me). Second, I think Luongo is just a better goaltender than Brodeur, at least at this point in Marty's career, so I think Canada's a better team than they were last Sunday if they stick with Luongo. Finally, the Canadians just have better talent. You saw this against the Russians. Russia's top players are just ridiculous, but when you get into a 60 minute game, depth is so important, every Canadian line is really good. I can't see the U.S. team beating them again.

I learned curling is awesome. I'm not sure if it's a sport, but I'm sure I can't stop watching it. There's something mesmerizing about it. You flip to CNBC or MSNBC to see if there's a hockey game going on, and you find curling. You think "hmm curling, let's see what else is on". But then, right before you're about to leave, you get a look at where all the stones are and you start wondering where they'll try to put the next one. An hour and a half later you just watched an entire curling match. If some American billionaire doesn't try to start a professional curling league in the U.S. in the next 12 months, we should take all of the money away from all of our billionaires, because they obviously don't know what to do with it.

Quick curling sidenote: The most interesting curling subplot was the constant complaining by the announcers and, apparently, some of the curlers, about the crowd being too rowdy. "Umm, excuse me, I can't slide this rock down this sheet of ice with you people shouting like that". It just seems so goofy, this is obviously some sort of Canadian or Scandinavian drinking game that somehow found its way to being a sport. I can't imagine the first curlers having polite crowds.

I learned I would very much like to be a speed skater. I definitely don't have the ability, but I'd still like to do it. Those people just look so relaxed, especially in the longer distance races. They just sort of glide down the straight parts of the track with their hands behind their backs, they look close to falling asleep. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if one of them stopped for a sandwich. But then if you actually look at how fast they're moving, it's like they're riding in an invisible snowmobile. Add this to the fun of short track skating (every short track race is constantly one wrong step away from a four-skater pile up), and winter Olympic skating destroys summer Olympic track and field. Destroys it.

I have a question though. The skaters wear those skin tight lycra suits for aerodynamics, right? Why don't track and field athletes wear those suits. Or, if it's more aerodynamic for the track and field people to wear spandex shirts and shorts, then why don't the skaters wear that? One of those outfits is more aerodynamic than the other, right? What am I missing? (Probably something obvious, seeing as I know almost nothing about skating, track and field or aerodynamics)

I learned even though I was wrong about the Olympics as a whole, I was right about some things. For example, I was right about skiing. All you have to do to win at skiing is get down the mountain the fastest. I could easily win a downhill skiing event. I'd die seconds later, because I would have no idea how to stop after I finished, but they'd have to bury me with my gold medal. The one skiing event I didn't mind was the new ski-cross. Ski-cross has potential, it's not quite there yet. I'm thinking maybe rockets on the backs of the skis, but it's on the right track.

Quick skiing sidenote: The cross country skiing is strangely riveting. Like a marathon on snow. It's sort of like curling in that I could watch it for an hour without noticing, but I can't quite put my finger on what's so entertaining about it.

I was also right about figure skating. In fact, it's even worse than I remember. One night, I tried to watch, because someone suggested to me that I should stick around for someone named Tanith Belbin. I didn't make it. Everything about it was awful. Every second was goofier than the last. Even worse than that, it's apparently the most popular sport, because NBC won't stop showing it. More than once, I saw figure skating on the big network while hockey was stuck on MSNBC or CNBC. I'm not OK with that, that's not how I roll.

I could go on for a while about this, but I think I'll just pick out my biggest problem. Figure skating has way too much crying. I don't mind some crying in sports. Basketball players cry when they win a championship. Baseball players cry when we find out they used steroids. Hockey players cry..never, they never cry, because they're real men. Figure skaters cry when they skate well, when they don't skate well, when they fall, when they get good scores, or bad scores, or any scores. Figure skaters cry at every possible outcome. It's unwatchable. Now, I fully realize that I am not physically capable of doing anything figure skaters do, including wearing the outfits. But that doesn't change how I feel about watching it.

I was also right about snowboarding, which is definitely not a sport. Also, is it just me, or are those snowboarding guys really unlikable? When you see an interview with Shaun White, don't you kind of want someone to run up and punch him in the face? You do, right? Or when you see them all just sort of hanging around the half pipe like high school stoners while they wait to go, wouldn't you love to see a bunch of ninjas run in and just go nuts on them? I feel like I'd enjoy seeing that.

Most importantly, I learned what it is that always makes the Olympics much better than I remember them being. There's always three or four things going on at once. It's like a sports carnival. So even when some of those things are figure skating and snowboarding, if only one of them is something I like, that's good enough, because I only need to be watching one thing at a time. Also, no joke, I would put up with months of non-stop figure skating if that's what I had to endure to get to this awesome hockey tournament.

Canadian Baby Boomers And The War On Christmas

I was watching TV during lunch today and I saw the President give yet another speech designed to get feckless Senate democrats to just use the majority they have and do something useful already. Good luck with that, Mr. President. He talked a lot today about the deficit and CBO scoring, so I guess he figures the biggest obstacle to a health care bill is the cost. Well, the biggest obstacle he can talk about out loud anyway. He can't just come out and say that Joe Lieberman is bought and paid for by health insurance companies and is just blocking health care reform for campaign money and political revenge, because that wouldn't be nice. He also can't say that Joe Lieberman is only an independent because neither party really wants him, that too wouldn't be nice. So, I'll get to the war on Christmas in a minute, but first, all this talk about money and health care gave me a new idea.

Insuring so many more people would cost money. A public option would cost money, subsidies would cost money, adding more people to medicare would cost money. Everything costs money. The President optimistically believes a good reform bill would ultimately save us money, and it might, but there's no guarantee. At the same time, the federal deficit is under increasing stress from retiring baby boomers qualifying for medicare and social security. This makes it even harder to sell anything that costs money. So here's the idea, send all the baby boomers to Canada.

I love this idea. First of all, Canada is great. They have hockey, maple syrup, snow, health care, more syrup. And baby boomers may be too old to learn a new language, but I don't think they're too old to learn a cool new Canadian accent. Also, I'm not 100% positive on this, but I'm pretty sure everyone who becomes a new Canadian citizen gets a free moose. If Canada doesn't like it, too bad. We've been putting up with their Celine Dions and their Trebeks for years, it's really the least they can do. You think we would miss our baby boomer friends and relatives? That's why Canada is such a fantastic idea. It's right there. I was in Detroit once, I could have traveled right to Canada via bridge OR tunnel. How much easier does it need to be? So there you go, I solved health care, what's next?

Oh yeah, the war on Christmas. I don't know if I can solve this one so easily. On the other hand, this is another one of those times when I get to disagree with everybody, so there's that. First though, let me say that I don't blame Bill O'Reilly (who is sort of the king of this issue) or Glenn Beck (who is a good bet to cry at some point in the next nine days about how there isn't a nativity scene somewhere) for talking about this. It's an interesting debate, it gets good ratings and the outrage they show isn't anymore disingenuous or fraudulent than the outrage they show about anything else. So I'm laying off Bill and Glenn today (and Glenn's lucky, Monday night he did a whole show about how environmentalism is really just a way to replace god with the planet, because god gave us liberty and if you replace god then government can take away our liberty, I almost threw something at my TV). I'm talking more about the people who listen to them, or argue with them, the people who really get up for this issue. I suppose my only real question is, why?

I guess I can sympathize with where Christians are coming from on this, at least to an extent. If you believe in your religion, and you perceive the country to be burying it when it used to be such an accepted part of the culture, I can see how that would be concerning. I just have one problem. If you told the Jesus in the bible that some places don't want to put Christmas symbols on public property, because it makes people of other faiths uncomfortable, do you think he'd say "screw those people! They're gonna look at little plastic baby me on the state house lawn and like it!"? If you wished him happy holidays, would he respond by putting a big "we say merry Christmas" bumper sticker on his donkey as a passive aggressive FU to all the happy holidays people? I know I'm the last person who should be telling religious people how to be religious, but I went to 12 years of Catholic school, and I feel like I have an OK grasp on the basics. So, do you really think Jesus would be that dickish about Christmas? Probably not, right?

The other people, the people who act honestly offended by Christmas, I have considerably less sympathy for them. I understand the church and state implications of religious symbols on public land, and I don't want religion anywhere near public schools, but sometimes you just say "who cares?" Is anyone honestly offended by Christmas? Really?

First of all, Christmas is barely even a religious holiday anymore (I know Christians hate this, but shhhh for a minute, I'm on your side for once). Everyone gets off work for Christmas, and the people who have to work usually get overtime or weekend pay or a floating holiday or something. We treat Christmas the same way we treat the Fourth of July, it's a national holiday. So, I say anyone who complains about seeing Christmas symbols has to go to work next Thursday and Friday while the rest of us are going to church (or in my case, sleeping late). They have to sit in their empty offices and be sad and not get any extra pay for it. Deal?

Second, Christmas is just fun. There's lights and cookies and a big fat guy with presents. You have parties where you can watch your stupider co-workers jeopardize their jobs. It's an excuse to give presents to people you care about. We get weeks of awful television and music that I can't stand, but other people seem to enjoy. I like fun things, don't you like fun things?

Also, I really don't like political correctness, not even a little. I'm not talking about not saying words that are legitimately offensive and hateful and have no place in society. That's not political correctness, that's being a grown-up. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I used to work in an office where we had a secret santa gift exchange every year. Then, one year, we called it secret snowflake, and we weren't allowed to say secret santa anymore. Everytime someone said secret snowflake to me, I lost a few brain cells in a tiny explosion of rage in my mind.

Christmas is also an excellent chance to do good things. It's a chance to donate to a charity or bring food to a soup kitchen or give toys to poor children. Would I like to think that if there was no Christmas we'd find other reasons to do these things? Sure, but for now we have Christmas, so why not take the opportunity to do something good. We can argue about which religion is right, or if god is even there, in January, after people get food and toys and jackets.

I'd like to see a truce in the culture war, just for Christmas. If you celebrate Christmas, and someone wishes you happy holidays, just say something nice back. If you don't celebrate Christmas, and someone wishes you a merry Christmas, I promise they aren't secretly trying to indoctrinate you and your kids. I think most people already get this, but for everyone else, Christmas is a good time to be nice to people. Christmas can be crappy for real reasons. Christmas sucks if you're alone, it can suck if you lost a family member recently, it sucks if you lost your job this year and you can't afford gifts. It can suck even more if you try to reach out to someone by saying happy holidays and you get an earful because they say merry Christmas. It can suck even more if you can't afford gifts for your kids, but you can still take them to the park to see the big shiny tree, only it's gone this year because someone called it offensive. Dramatic scenarios? Sure, fine, all I'm saying is, everyone be nice for a couple of weeks, because it's Christmas. And if you don't celebrate Christmas, just be nice because there's a way to be a person.

Is it ironic for me to start by suggesting the deportation of baby boomers and end by asking everyone to be nice? Sure, as always, I'm a puzzle. What do these two things have to do with each other? If you're one of the millions of Americans who can't afford health care, and you spent all year hearing about how the President and Congress were on the job, and now you see that we're getting either a craptastic health care bill or no health care bill, wouldn't that be the crappiest Christmas of all?