Where's My Food-A-Rac-A-Cycle?

Let me just say, I don't want this to be the anti-Fox News, anti-Glenn Beck blog. I have no desire to be that guy. For one thing, I don't know any of those Fox guys personally, and I'm sure they're perfectly decent people in real life (or, ya know, not). Also, I fully realize that I don't have to watch anything on TV I don't like and nobody's forcing me to sit through Glenn's rants. Sometimes though, I just feel like Fox is baiting me.

Just a little while ago, during a Monday Night Football commercial, I flipped briefly over to the Hannity Hysteria Hour. I didn't stay long, but in the short amount of time I was there, I heard Sean bitching about how President Obama has yet to do a lot of the stuff that Sean doesn't want him to do. Just before that, Dick Morris was out from under his bridge, lurking around the studio, and he and Sean were both complaining about the President sending more troops to Afghanistan. Of course, if the President had decided to not send more troops to Afghanistan, both of these guys would have set themselves on fire. But somehow, President Obama doing exactly what these two wanted him to do is still a valid reason for the usual whining and general contempt.

As usual though, nothing beats Beck. He's the Shakespeare of incoherence. Last Wednesday, I came home from work and flipped around the news networks a little before I started my long weekend. As is his usual custom, Mr. Beck was on the verge of tears while waxing poetic about America's founders. In about 20 minutes, Glenn's show progressed in the following way.

First, when I got there, he was on some sort of nonsense about the myth of separation of church and state. I don't want to go into a whole thing on this, so I'll just say, if you think you can avoid laws respecting an establishment of religion, as Glenn's buddies the founders said we have to, without keeping religion separate from the state, then you might be what I'd call "reality challenged".

It seemed I'd stumbled into the middle of one of Glenn's tangential adventures, because the topic of the show didn't have anything to do with church and state. Eventually we got back to his point, which was property rights. First, Glenn pointed out how smart the founders were to replace property in the Declaration of Independence with the pursuit of happiness. Once again, Glenn's assertion is that the founders' strategy of ignoring slavery and hoping it would go away was genius. I also enjoyed how Glenn was able to talk for basically the whole show about how important the founders thought property rights were without ever mentioning how they screwed the people who already lived here out of all their land. I'm sure this was an oversight on Glenn's part. Glenn wouldn't ever willfully omit the fact that the founders weren't so wild about property rights for people who had, let's say, a certain lack of whiteness.

So what do Fox's usual adventures into fantasy land have to do with food-a-rac-a-cycles? Two things, we'll get back to the second one in a minute. But first, Glenn's ranting about our founders reminded me that independence was our first big, bold idea as a country. It was a good idea and it turned out pretty well, but it took some courage at the time, it's not like winning the war was a slam dunk. Since then, you can follow a series of big ideas through the timeline of America. The story of our bold advances is the story of our nation, and this brings me to the Jetsons.

I feel like my generation was implicitly promised, by the Jetsons, a great, technologically advanced future. As best I can remember, the Jetsons lived in a big building on top of a giant pole. I don't remember anyone in that show ever using the ground for anything (looking back, this was probably the result of some kind of matrix-style catastrophe that blocked the sun below the clouds, but I didn't think of things like that when I was six, so it just seemed cool). How awesome would a groundless society be?

The Jetsons also had a robot maid. I know we have robots now, but Rosie, the Jetsons' maid, she had wheels. When I see robots on the news, they rarely have wheels, and a maid on wheels is much better. Also, Rosie was sassy, these robots we have now aren't sassy.

Most importantly, the Jetsons had a food-a-rac-a-cycle. George could go up to a machine in his apartment, push some buttons or whatever (I don't remember exactly, sorry, it was like 25 years ago) and it would just give him what he wanted. How cool is that? Jane must have had to buy ingredients for it or something, why else would George have had to put up with Mr. Spacely? Still though, how great would it be to just walk up to a machine in your apartment and order whatever you wanted. I know, Star Trek had even better food technology, and I'd love to be a guy on a star ship, but we're taking baby steps here.

I also remember flying cars, and there was a lot going on with sprockets and cogs. My point is, I was promised a cool future. So, where's my bold new advancement? Where's my big new thing? The internet, you say? Bleh. I have a confession, I'm not a big fan of porn. Some people are, and for them, the internet is better than a whole garage full of flying cars, but not me. For me, the internet is just a convenient way to take work home (and do this, but if I didn't have a blog, I'd probably just make my co-workers listen to my rambling).

Cell phones? Double bleh. When I was a kid, people could leave their houses and be left alone for a while. Now? People expect you to be constantly available. I continue to assert that cell phones, while they're useful sometimes, are really more of an annoyance then anything else. And really that's it. That's what we got. Where's my flying car? Where's my jetpack? Where's my awesome machine that makes whatever food I want?

I'm sure there are a lot of perfectly sane reasons why we don't have these things. For example, I know that jetpacks have actually been invented, they're just incredibly dangerous and use a ridiculous amount of fuel. Still, I am not satisfied with these excuses, my cup is less than full, and I think it starts with leadership. In 1960, President Kennedy said to the nation "hey, I'm gonna get these science nerds together and they're gonna put someone on the moon by 1970." I may be paraphrasing. My point is, Kennedy said it, and then it happened. This is the kind of bold idea I'm talking about. It starts with a difficult goal, but we find a way to reach it, and in the process, we make other discoveries and advances. Eventually, I get to have steak in my apartment without having to, ya know, know how to cook a steak.

Where's the leadership now? I recently read somewhere that President Obama wants to promise an 83% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Why not just promise a 13 billion percent reduction in carbon emissions by the year 3900? And anyway, who gets excited about reducing carbon emissions? I want to hear some political leader demand that we cure cancer by 2015, or build a working nuclear fusion reactor by 2020 (and by working I mean it both powers stuff and doesn't annihilate us. Is this even possible? Probably not, but people didn't think the moon was possible either, that's sort of my point). Or how about just saying we're going to Mars by the end of the next decade?

I'm not hearing the bold ideas from our leaders. And you know whose fault it is? Yours (caught you off guard there, didn't I?). It's my fault too, it's all of our faults. If President Obama stood up at January's state of the union address and announced that we're sending people to Mars by 2020, here's what would happen. First, the news media would mock him and say he needs to worry about the economy and jobs and security. Then the Republicans would latch onto that message and make it part of the 2012 campaign. Then, enough of us would fall for it and the President wouldn't get re-elected. The other option would be for the President to drop the idea and never mention it again. This is what happened when George W. Bush said he wanted to send people to Mars. He got made fun of, he saw polls that said people want him to focus on other stuff, and he never mentioned it again.

This where Fox comes back in. We get the quality of journalism we deserve. Fox exists because enough of us watch (myself included). In a democracy, we also get the government we deserve. We have to be willing to believe that our leaders can focus on more than one thing at a time. We have to let them do big, abstract things without accusing them of ignoring the smaller, more concrete things that effect us everyday. We have to be willing to let our leaders reach for bold goals and fail sometimes without bitching about it and electing someone else.

I think, if President Obama wanted to point us to Mars, he wouldn't say anything, because it wouldn't poll well while the economy's in the toilet. And I think it's a shame, because it's hard to make amazing new advances when you're not trying to do anything that requires amazing new advances. I don't want a newer, smaller cell phone that does more stuff other than make phone calls, I just want a damn food machine, and maybe a jetpack.

Thankfulness Neutral

Around this time of year, most sports commentators and web sites give us lists of things for which they are thankful. I don't want to be a jerk, but going on and on about what I'm thankful for doesn't really sound like me. I've decided on a compromise. I'll give you a list of five things I'm thankful for and five things I'm not. Call it thankfulness neutral. It's like being carbon neutral, only with less hippies and more regularly shaped light bulbs.

I'm thankful for the Yankees' world series win. I always try to explain to fans of other teams what it's like to be a Yankee fan. It's a joyless sports existence. Fans of other teams celebrate when their team wins. They cheer and jump up and down, and sometimes they turn over cars(I'm looking at you, Utah fans. You can't fool me, I know what you've got planned for if the Jazz ever win a title). When the Yankees win, I just breath a sigh of relief and start worrying about next season. And when they don't win, it's just awful, because you always feel like they're supposed to. So, the Yankees spared me this year, and I appreciate it (although I'm still already worrying about next year, I hear they plan on putting Joba back in the rotation, I'm thinking of going down to the stadium and protesting, who's with me?)

I'm thankful for living in Connecticut during football season. The list of good things about living in Connecticut is pretty short. I don't think it's Connecticut's fault. Once you live in New York, everywhere else sucks. But I've got two reasons why I'm happy to be here during football season. First, it gave me a great reason to become a Patriots fan. I've never really had a football team. I liked the Houston Oilers when I was a kid, then they moved. I liked Tampa for a while, but they got boring when they won a superbowl. I never got behind the two New York teams. The Jets are just an abomination, everything about them screams "we'll never be that good". I don't know what my problem is with the Giants. For me, the Giants are like that guy you work with, he never did anything to you and he's probably a decent guy, but you just hate his face for some reason.

The other good part of living here during football season is the games I get to see. In New York, I got the Giants, the Jets and usually one other game. Here, I get the New York and Hartford networks, so I get the Giants, Jets, Pats and usually one other game on top of that. I know it sounds like only one extra game, but having two games on for all six hours most weeks is clutch, especially since NFL games spend as much time in commercials as they do showing you actual football.

I'm thankful for fantasy football. This was a close one for me, I could go either way. I'm a hyper-competitive person, I need to win at everything. So, every Sunday my fantasy team loses is completely ruined. If my team was 3-8, this would have probably gone in the not thankful category. Luckily, we're 9-2, so I'm pretty pleased (although this week isn't looking good, my opponent's up like 40 points after the Thanksgiving games, I think it should be illegal in fantasy football to use anyone who's playing the Raiders, it's just not fair).

Winning isn't a good enough reason to be thankful though. I appreciate fantasy football because of how interesting it makes unbearable games. This week, the Rams are playing the Seahawks. What a total garbage dump of a game. They should make guys in prison who killed people watch this game as punishment. But I'll be glued to any updates and highlights from this game, because I'm counting on the Seahawks' back-up running back to have a big game. Earlier this year, the Jets played the Raiders. That game was over immediately after the teams were introduced, but I watched every second, because I had the Jets defense. It takes something special to make football, which is already pretty great, roughly 39 times more interesting, we should all be thankful for fantasy football. The first guy who came up with the idea should have a monument somewhere in his honor (until my team loses this week, or in the playoffs, then screw him).

I'm thankful for the Monday Night Football announcing booth. When I was at my aunt and uncle's house for Thanksgiving, one of my cousins said he didn't like the MNF booth. I guess I shouldn't have dropped him on his head so much when we were kids. Seriously, I can't think of one sporting event I wouldn't want those three guys to announce, even if they didn't know anything about it. It's the best booth in sports, and it's not even close, and I should have the power to suspend anyone who disagrees from watching sports for a month.

Finally, I'm thankful for ESPN. I think we all need to take a minute to give thanks for this. ESPN gets taken for granted because we've had it for so long now, but I think we have to remember how awesome this is. Before ESPN, the only way to see sports highlights, was to watch the crappy local news for a half hour and hope they'd show you some good stuff at the end. Now, not only do we get all the good highlights, but we get so much sports that we even get the unwatchable things (I'm looking at you WNBA). I remember not having cable until I was maybe 9 or 10, no ESPN, it was awful. Life would be unbearable without ESPN, and I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.

I am not thankful for hockey on Versus. It's not so bad now, I miss a couple of games a week that I'd get if they were on ESPN, but I still get three local teams and I can deal with it. However, the hockey playoffs are the single best thing in sports, and instead of getting games on ESPN and ESPN2 like I used to, I get nothing. I've said before, I don't understand this strategy by the NHL. It's like they're playing hide and seek with me, but they're great hiders and I'm a terrible seeker. I'm getting annoyed just thinking about it, let's move on.

I'm not thankful for the BCS. I'm not sure anyone whose business card doesn't read "college president" is. This may be the single worst thing about sports in America. It looks like we may get 4 or 5 undefeated teams this year, so I'm looking forward to total chaos and to seeing BCS apologists tell me why it's actually a great thing that TCU never lost a game but still doesn't get to play for a title.

Did you read my paragraph about living in Connecticut during football season? Well, that's how I feel about living near New York during basketball season, only the exact opposite. Not thankful doesn't even begin to cover it. I'm not close enough to Boston to get Celtics games on NESN, so it's just the regular New York basketball I've always had. In my NBA preview post, I wrote that you could combine the Nets and Knicks rosters and you still wouldn't get a playoff team. After a month of the season, I'm not sure you even get an NBA team. The Nets are steaming toward the worst start in NBA history, but honestly, the Knicks are even worse. The Knicks aren't even trying, and the fact that Isaiah Thomas traded every first round pick the Knicks had until 2026 means they don't even get anything for sucking. A month ago I called the Knicks a craptastrophy, I'm thinking about downgrading them to catastrophuck.

I am not thankful for commercials. If the BCS isn't the worst thing about sports in America, commercials definitely are, especially this time of year. I'm like four commercials away from burning down a Best Buy (I'll do it when no one's inside, I'm not a monster, OK fine, I won't burn anything down, stupid society, always looking down on arson).

Finally, I'm not thankful for Allen Iverson's current pseudo-retirement. Allen Iverson is the best point guard in NBA history. You heard me. Not arguably the best, or maybe the best, just the best. Make yourself a list of the best point guards in NBA history, then cross out the name of anyone would couldn't possibly guard Iverson. If you haven't crossed out every name except Gary Payton (and maybe Isaiah Thomas, although probably not) then go back and do it again, you are awarded no points, and may god have mercy on your soul. People will say he was never really a pure point guard, because he wasn't a good sharer. Fine, let's both start basketball teams, you take the guy who can't really shoot that well and doesn't have the skills to get to the hoop and finish, but makes up for it by passing the ball to other guys who can do those things. I'll take the guy with all the talent. Let's see who wins.

I really want some NBA team to sign Iverson. I think he still has a lot left, and I don't want to see him go out like this. The problem is Iverson needs to go to a team where he can be the alpha dog. Good teams already have one of those, and bad teams don't want him because the 8-10 extra wins he might give them still won't get them anywhere. Still, somebody should sign Allen, for the most simple reason in sports. He's better then the guy they currently have at his position. And if you think he'll destroy your locker room or your chemistry, then get yourself a better coach. Because if you're bad team, and you can't figure out a way to use a player who's probably still better than all the other players you have, then you might as well just give all your season ticket holders their money back and call it a season.

What The Hell Happened To...

...Pro Wrestling?

I loved pro wrestling when I was a kid, loved it. When I was like 10 years old, if I could have quit my life and picked anyone else to be, I probably would have picked the Ultimate Warrior (who, in case you haven't heard, is completely insane now. Apparently painting your face and acting like a lunatic every night eventually makes you go crazy. Who knew?) Even in high school and early in college I watched a lot of wrestling. I didn't care if it wasn't real, it was fun and entertaining, more so than a lot of the other crap on TV. Now, I never watch wrestling, and I haven't for a while. I'm not sure why. I don't remember ever thinking "screw this, I'm done with wrestling." I never made a conscious decision to stop watching, I just slowly stopped paying attention to it, until it sort of faded away, like old married couples do to each other.

So, here's the plan. Tonight, I'm watching Monday Night Raw and keeping a little journal here of what I see. Raw starts at 8 tonight. Usually that'd be a deal breaker because House is on, but since Jennifer Morrison has apparently left the show, I'm somewhere around 40% less interested (OK, maybe more like 99%, we'll see how it goes), so I can easily pay attention to both shows. Since I have Chris Johnson and Andre Johnson on my fantasy team, I may also throw in some Monday Night Football comments, but mostly Monday Night Raw. What I really want to find out is this: Did anything really happen to wrestling, or did something just happen to me?

And here we go. It seems I've picked an awesome night to do this. Not only am I getting an extra hour, but I'm getting all the stars of Raw, Smackdown and ECW in one big Thanksgiving spectacular (by the way, I'll be using the internets to identify who all these stars I'm seeing are, because if I just keep calling everyone "that angry looking dude", you won't know who I'm talking about). I'm pretty confident that I won't find myself, at any point tonight, thinking how glad I am they didn't have to cut this show down to just two hours.

They're coming to us live from Hershey, PA, or as announcer Michael Cole just called it, Chocolatetown, USA. First up, here comes Randy Orton. I feel like I've heard of him. He looks pretty angry, he's also the former WWE champion. So far, I'm learning that Jesse Ventura is tonight's Raw guest host. The internets helped me a out little here too. Earlier this year, Raw went away from having one guy pretend to run the show every week and, instead, they bring a different celebrity (a term they use quite loosely) on each week to pretend to be in charge. I'm sure this leads to many well thought out plot ideas that make perfect sense. Anyway, after doing some typical bad guy stuff, like insulting the crowd, Randy invites Jesse to come out and talk to him.

Ventura announces that he ain't dressed like no governor tonight, he's dressed like wrestling (the people of Minnesota must be so proud). Then he goes on to say he's the governor of revolution (I thought he wasn't a governor tonight, I'm so confused). We're taking the long route to finding out what tonight's big theme is, it's some kind of battle royal to decide who the number one contender will be. These two guys couldn't have less chemistry working together. Also, Ventura's wearing a shiny, sort of snake skin printed jacket and what appear to be swimming goggles, and Randy looks like he fell into a vat of tattoo ink and couldn't get it all cleaned off.

Next segment. Kofi Kingston in a qualifying match for the battle royal we get to see later. Kofi seems to be oscillating between looking happy and jumping around and looking tough and mean. They may still have some character development work to do there. He's wrestling some guy named Dolf Ziggler. Dolf seems to be doing a Mr. Perfect impression (they didn't actually let him talk, but visually, it was pretty dead on). You can tell this match doesn't matter because the two announcers (the previously mentioned Cole and the ridiculous Jerry Lawler) are spending most of it talking about Jesse Ventura and Randy Orton and how good the show is gonna be tonight. Eventually, Kofi gets the win with some kind of super street fighter spinning kick.

Cut to the backstage Thanksgiving spread, which is absolutely getting destroyed by 11PM. In the presence of the soon-to-be-on-the-floor Thanksgiving food, we get an address from The Miz. I remember this guy from the Real World. Back then, he was one of the most unlikeable people on TV. It seems not much has changed. Too bad too, because he finished by telling us that he's The Miz, and he's awesome. Pretty good catch phrase wasted on a pretty hopeless guy. Some people are just intolerable, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Another battle royal qualifier, and here comes Sheamus. Big Irish dude with cool entrance music. Obviously, I'm a big fan. Apparently he kicked Lawler in the head last week, I like him even more. He's wrestling the other Irish guy, Finlay, who I think I remember from WCW. Sheamus's skin is so pale the camera can't actually pick him up, we're just seeing tights and red hair. Apparently they're trying push Sheamus on the fans a bit, because they just let him destroy Finlay in like two minutes. Then he makes sure we know he's a bad guy by beating on Finlay some more after the match. Wrestling announcers are really good at that fake somber tone, like they're watching something genuinely terrible happen.

Another little vignette in front of the Thanksgiving food. I have a bad feeling we'll be seeing these all night. I'm noticing my first trend. When I used to watch wrestling, the talking segments were interesting and funny. The talking I've seen so far tonight has mostly been poorly written and uncomfortable. I can't decide yet if they've decided to intentionally not have a funny show, or if they're just trying to be funny and failing. My point was just amplified by another unbearable Orton and Ventura segment. It's like they're making those two do it over until they get it right.

Here comes CM Punk. More solid entrance music, but I get the sense the crowd doesn't like him. Apparently Mr. Punk is straight edge, which means he's no fun (OK, that was mean). That's funny, because if you showed me a picture of him and asked me, straight edge or meth head, I'd definitely go with meth head. He's off on some tangent about calling the crowd fat. Then he calls his opponent for the night a turkey (get it? it's Thanksgiving. Now that's comedy). We'll see him wrestle John Cena next.

Here comes Cena, and I really can't describe the sound the crowd made for him. Imagine 10,000 children cheering as loud as they can while, simultaneously, 10,000 grown men with way too much time on their hands boo lustily. It was really quite something. This has the feel of a long match during which, as a non-fan, I'll be pretty bored. It looks like Cena's been appointed the new Hulk Hogan. He gets beat up for a while, then he gets a second wind and waives his arms around and stuff and gets the victory. By the way, are free tattoos part of the WWE health plan? This Punk guy is covered in them. Finally, Cena wins the match with something called the attitude adjustment. Also, apparently, I can't see him. I don't know what that means, but the fans do, so OK.

And now we're watching a replay of the first crappy Ventura/Orton segment. But then, hey! it's Vince McMahon. Vince is talking to Ventura, still nothing funny yet, but they're plugging Ventura's new TV show pretty hard. I could tell you about it, but it'd probably be easier to just say that you don't want to watch it, trust me. At the end, we find out that Vince and Jesse are going to do some announcing together today, like the old days, this isn't a terrible idea. I'd stick around for this, but the talking is still more uncomfortable than entertaining. We're about an hour and fifteen minutes in, I haven't laughed once.

Next up, another battle royal qualifier, this one's a six man tag. It's too bad, because these guys each look pretty ridiculous, but they're all out there together, so it's hard to pick one to mock. I guess I'm saying, I don't think we're looking at any future big stars right now. That was quick, the three black guys won. Is it racist that I've seen four black wrestlers tonight and three of them were just on the same team? I honestly don't know.

Hey, it's DX. I remember these guys. Apparently they've run afoul of a leprechaun. That was easily the funniest segment so far, but that's not saying much. It looks like they've toned these guys way down since I last saw them. I'm starting to notice another trend. It seems they're now gearing the show toward two audiences. Children, and adults who take wrestling way too seriously. I'm not sure this is a recipe for success.

Orton's back again, he's wrestling some guy named Evan Bourne. I get the sense Evan's one of those guys who jumps around a lot, but isn't allowed to talk. More importantly, Ventura just invented the word persistency. This guy was a Governor, of a real state, not like the "Governor of Pain" or something. Listen Minnesota, Al Franken was strike two, one more of those and we're selling you to Canada. Predictably, Orton and his tattoos just destroyed that Bourne kid, good persistency out of Orton there.

They're making a sequel to John Cena's awful Marine movie. I'm not kidding. We're getting a look at an extended trailer. Even better, Cena's not even in the sequel, some other wrestler is. What a disaster, I'd rather get my ass kicked by a bar full of actual Marines than see that movie.

Time for the WWE women's division. They've got some of the ladies dressed up as pilgrims. When we get back from commercial, I assume we'll see the others dressed up as indians(yup). They should find the guy who thought this was a good idea, take him out behind the arena after the show and shoot him. I really don't know what to tell you about this, so I'll just say, I don't particularly care for fake breasts and 10 pounds of make-up, but if you do like strippers, you'd love this. So there.

Next up, our friends DX vs. the Hart Dynasty. DX comes out waiving around glow sticks like they're at a rave. Something has gone horribly wrong here. The Hart Dynasty looks like a new Hart Foundation, and I can't say I like their chances. They've got a girl with them though, so there's that. OK, we're past two hours now, I haven't seen anyone go through a table, I haven't seen anyone get hit with a chair, I'm even starting to wonder if they'll be destroying the Thanksgiving spread. What happened here?

After DX wins, they get a visit from Chris Jericho, who is one half of the unified tag team champions. Jericho used to be legitimately funny and entertaining, so, of course, they've got him playing Mr. serious guy. Honestly, he looks bored with himself. He still has his cool Canadian accent though, they can't take that away from him.

Next up is Batista. I would describe the initial crowd reaction as indifferent. He got roughly the same reaction I would get if I got past security and wandered out to the ring. He's talking about whatever it is he did last night at survivor series. Good for him? By the time he was done talking, I think he almost got someone in the arena to pay attention to him. Luckily for everyone, he got interrupted by Kane. That's one big, scary looking, dude right there. He says some tough guy things and chases ole Batista out of the ring. I think everyone's pretty grateful.

Next up, a tag team match. The first team is two black guys called (I'm not kidding) Cryme Tyme. Wow, just, wow. The other team, two guys called Legacy. If I had to pick a word to describe them, I think it would be oily. Yea, those guys look slippery. This seems to just be bathroom break filler time while they set up for the main event. Quick win for Legacy over (sigh) Cryme Tyme. I'm just glad that one's over.

Who is this Santino Marella guy? He was easily the best thing about this show. The writing for his segment wasn't any better than anyone else's, but he did a solid job with it. I think I actually cracked a smile.

The main event is up next, but I can't take it anymore. If my job was to torture terror suspects, I'd tape their eyes open like in Clockwork Orange and make them watch Raw. I'm done, I'm tapping out, WWE has beaten me.

Here's what I found out. This was some of the worst television I've ever seen. Maybe the great stuff they were doing in the 90's set the bar at a level they can't possibly get back to. Maybe steroid concerns forced them to choose between great entertainers and great athletes, instead of being able to turn great entertainers into great (or at least passable) athletes. Either way, I don't think 10 year old me or 15 year old me would have sat through the last three hours. So, am I the one that changed? I don't think so. What the hell happened to pro wrestling? I don't know, but I hope it never happens to me.

Better Than Free Speech

I follow politics pretty closely. For most issues, I can give you a logical, decently well-informed opinion and I can defend why I think that way. Recently though, I've been thinking that there are some issues on which I don't have a strong opinion. These aren't issues I find unimportant, some of them are very important. It's not like I don't know anything about these issues, I've tried to learn as much as I can. But, at the end of the process, I can't pick a side. I have thoughts, inclinations, I could tell you which way I'd vote if you forced me. Honestly though, I can see both sides, and I don't have strong feelings either way.

Take gun control. I understand why people want much stricter gun control laws. Way too many people get shot in this country. Presidents have been shot, police officers, military personnel, not to mention ordinary citizens. Add to that all the robberies, sexual assaults and other crimes that happen under the threat of being shot. We know we have a problem with guns, and it still took me longer last month to locate and purchase a copy of Madden 10 then it would have taken me to find and purchase a gun. I don't blame anyone for trying to do whatever they can to start improving the situation, and I certainly don't blame Democratic law makers for trying to find a way to legally control guns.

Also, the second amendment argument Republicans make about gun control is stupid. The people who wrote the Constitution had no intention of making the second amendment about individual gun ownership. How do I know what the founders were talking about? Because they told us, they were talking about a well regulated militia. I know, the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way. What makes me smarter than the Supreme Court? I don't know, but I am. This doesn't necessarily mean we don't have a right to gun ownership, go read the ninth amendment, I'll wait. OK, moving on.

This where the Libertarian in me comes out. When people ask me if marijuana should be legal, I say of course it should. I don't smoke pot, because I'm not 16 years old and I have a job. But the fact that smoking pot robs some people of the ability to ever leave their parents' basement shouldn't ruin it for everyone else. Laws shouldn't restrict the rights of responsible people because of the actions of stupid people. The same argument can be made for guns, and I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't make it. A responsible adult can be reasonably expected to own a gun without killing anyone. You could argue that only misuse of marijuana makes bad things happen, while, unless way more people are buying guns to use as paperweights than I realize, the primary function of a gun is to injure or kill someone. That's a fair point, but I still think my general principle holds up (and, gun people, don't talk to me about hunting, I'm barely in your corner as it is, that isn't going to help).

The death penalty is another example. I don't think the state should kill people. I also don't know how the death penalty isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment and banned by the eighth amendment. If your definition of cruelty doesn't cover killing people, I don't know what to tell you, but if I ever have kids, you aren't babysitting.

At the same time, if a guy who kills a bunch of people gets found guilty, and if the state he does it in has the death penalty as an option, and the court decides to use that option on him, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, ya know? And if it brings the families of the victims some sense of peace and closure, then I'll lose even less sleep (I was already losing zero sleep, what's less than that, would I actually gain sleep?).

I feel this way about abortion too. This is a really hot issue, people on both sides feel strongly about it, but not me. I'm inclined to leave the choice up to individuals. Life begins at some point, we don't really know when, who gets to draw that line? I can't see doing anything other than letting people make that choice for themselves.

On the other hand, some people think life definitely begins at conception. They want the government to use its authority to protect fetuses that can't possibly defend themselves. That's a perfectly reasonable argument, and I don't have anything bad to say about the people making it.

I think you get the point. So recently I had an idea. I'd like to sell my opinion on these issues to the highest bidder. The NRA wants to pay me $50,000 to talk about individual gun ownership as a right? Sold! The catholic church wants to pay me $75,000 to be super pro-life guy? Not only sold, but because they do good charity work and I'm a nice guy, I'll do it for $15,000 and a guarantee that I'm going to heaven, just in case I'm totally wrong on the whole god issue and heaven is actually there. I mean, I wouldn't pay for afterlife insurance, but I'll take it for free if you're offering.

I don't think this would make me a bad person, I honestly believe both sides of these issues have a fair point, I wouldn't be saying anything I thought was total nonsense and I could advocate on either side without saying anything I thought was a lie. Sadly, we'll never get to find out if this would actually make me a bad person, because I'll never get to do it. You know why not? Because I'm not a politician.

See, opinions are certainly for sale. I already talked about how the Supreme Court, in yet another example of them being wrong and me being right, recently, and insanely, decided that campaign contributions are a form of speech. So, thanks to the concept of corporate personhood, which always gives me a headache when I think about it, we've basically legalized bribery. Politicians can take whatever amount of money they can get from industries they're supposed to be regulating. They can sell their opinions for top dollar, and you better believe they do. I can put my opinions up for sale too, but nobody will buy them, because, unlike politicians, I can't turn my opinions into useful actions.

This is the part where I'm supposed to give you an amusing and somewhat scary list of politicians and show you how they've successfully matched their voting records to the interests of their biggest donors. I'm not going to, because I don't blame the politicians. They're prisoners of a broken system. And it isn't like they're using the money to buy big houses and fancy cars, they just use it to keep their jobs. You can't get elected and re-elected without tons of money, and you can't get all the money you need from 10 and 20 dollar donations from regular people. The rules allow them to take huge donations from big corporate interests, and the system basically demands it.

On top of that, there's really nothing the rest of us can do about it. Should we vote for the candidates that don't take any corporate money? Sure, good luck finding one. If the Supreme Court sticks to the idea that campaign contributions are a form of free speech, Congress can't do anything about it even if they want to. We're basically stuck with it.

Well, I don't think it's fair. I thought we were all supposed to be equal here. All I get is free speech, it's useless, I can't get a dime for it. But politicians get something much better, their speech is incredibly expensive. Corporations spend millions of dollars on politicians' speech every election cycle, but I'm stuck here with this worthless free speech, and it sucks. After years of watching politicians think and say whatever people with money want them to think and say, I think it's time for us to stand up, hold our heads high and boldly say "we want in!"

What The Hell Happened To...

...the Olympics?

Before I get to that, let me just say, wow, was I wrong about the Pacquiao/Cotto fight. I didn't see it, but i know who won and I saw pictures of Cotto after the fight, he looked like a guy who needs a new face. I won't make that mistake again. I'm picking Pacquiao to destroy Floyd Mayweather Jr., and the fight isn't even scheduled yet.

Anyway, when I was a kid, I remember the Olympics being kind of a big deal (people knew them, they were very important, they had many leather bound books and their apartment smelled of rich mahogany). Even as recently as 1996 I remember being at least moderately excited about the summer Olympics. Now? Apparently they're having some Olympics in Vancouver soon. I'm sure you'll start seeing unbearable commercials for them while you're trying to watch The Office. I'll watch the hockey when it's on, but even that's ruined because it interrupts the actual hockey season, so I'm already annoyed. I know Olympic hockey is better than the NHL in some ways, and I only get to see local teams, but I'd still rather watch the Rangers vs. Devils game than Norway vs. Switzerland. Also, they have women's hockey now. No, just, just no. The rest of it? I couldn't be less interested. So, what the hell happened to the Olympics?

By the way, while some of the things I'll talk about apply to both Olympiads, I'll mostly just be picking on the winter Olympics today, but the summer games suck too, trust me. In fact, the summer games are even worse because A) No hockey and B) there's actually other stuff to do during the summer and it just reminds you of how unwatchable they are (although the winter Olympics have a similar problem and we'll get to that).

For starters, I think the Olympics do a bad job of appealing to real sports fans. Nothing epitomizes this better than the opening ceremonies. There's nothing real sports fans hate more than unnecessarily long pre-game nonsense before the actual game starts. I was so excited when the weather cancelled whatever stupid mini-concert was supposed to happen before game 1 of the world series, only to find out they were just going to do it before game 2. Sing the anthem (or anthems, if you're watching hockey, reason number 39 hockey is awesome), introduce the teams, then everyone shut up and let's play.

The Olympics start the whole two-week event with an opening ceremony that usually isn't even followed by sports. This is like going through all the hassle of getting married without following it with any of the fun of getting divorced. Did you see the opening ceremonies in China two years ago? What a mess. I'd rather watch a 10-hour American Idol marathon then sit through that. The thing where they bring the teams out in sort of a parade, I have no issue with that, I said introducing the teams is cool. But the rest of it? No thank you.

Also, the Olympics has a lot of crappy sports. You heard me. Let's look at some of the winter sports we've got coming our way (I've already covered women's hockey, seriously, just stop. Women's rugby starting in the 2016 summer games? Totally different story, I'm completely on board. I'm a puzzle).

Skiing. Not the cross-country skiing. If you want to run a marathon on skis, it's your funeral, I won't complain. I'm talking about any of the downhill skiing. You know what would be a better name for those competitions? Gravity. Why not take the mountain out and just have a skydiving competition (come to think of it, I might actually watch that).

Biathlon. This is where people ski around for a while, and every now and then they stop to shoot at targets, with rifles. This actually sounds exciting at first, but watch it sometime, it's like they've intentionally taken out anything that might be fun. I can think of so many things they could do with this event that would make it, quite possibly, the best sport ever. Instead of shooting at stupid targets, what if the athletes were shooting at, I don't know, bears? Instead of using rifles, why not crossbows? What if we got the people drunk first? What if the bears were drunk too? So much untapped potential.

Also, did you know they added snowboarding to the Olympics? More gravity based heroics. Plus, this is basically just skateboarding for people who live in cold places. Also, as I understand it, snowboarders get to strap their feet to the board. I've never been snowboarding, but I skateboarded some when I was a kid, and I would have been a lot better at it if I'd just tied myself to the board the whole time.

I could go on and on about the sports. And I'm not even complaining about figure skating, which actually goes under the not appealing to real sports fans category more than the crappy sports category. The point is, I think it may be time to streamline a little. I know, that would make athletes sad when their sport goes bye bye. By that logic, the NFL should have 2600 teams so everyone can play football. Life's hard, get a helmet.

Poor locations are a problem too. Vancouver isn't too bad. But the last summer games were in China. How are you supposed to get an audience in America when everything good happens at 4 in the morning? The 2002 winter games were in Salt Lake City. Listen, I'm not going to Utah unless I get kidnapped by mormons, I don't care how hot people keep telling me the women are. The 2016 games were just awarded to Brazil. Good luck with that. Bad locations suck all the excitement out of the event.

My last complaint is a small one, but I think it's important. The winter Olympics happen right in the middle of the TV season. Do you really want people watching your TV show and thinking about how much they'd rather be watching a new episode of 30 Rock? Probably not. This just reminds people of how boring your show is.

I have a confession, I'm honestly not sure where I was going with all this. I wanted to do my usual Friday sports thing (posted on Thursday this week because I'm going to a wedding tomorrow), and I know the Olympics are coming up, but I really don't know how to wrap this one up. Usually, I finish up with a big solution to the problem. I really don't know if this one is salvageable. Would less sports make the product better, or just easier to ignore? Would less silly opening ceremonies help? Would it be better if every winter Olympics was held in either Toronto, Calgary or Edmonton? (OK, that one I know, yes, yes it would).

The truth is, I don't know if the Olympics is fixable. But maybe it doesn't need fixing. Not everything needs to be entertaining and marketable. Sometimes, you just get a bunch of people together, and they do stuff, and you figure out who the best is at everything, and then you give out medals. If people want to watch, fine. If they don't, OK. Most things on TV are done for the rest of us, for our entertainment, but that's not what the Olympics is, the Olympics is for the athletes first.

You might have noticed I left out the often voiced complaint that we have too many professionals in the Olympics now. Long before I made a goofy list of complaints about the Olympics, the games complained about themselves. They said "hey, our thing isn't entertaining enough, not enough people watch, let's have some more pro athletes, the best in the world."

So, my message to the IOC wouldn't be a demand for less sports or better locations, it would be this. Stop trying to be something you were never supposed to be, and I'll stop calling you stupid.

Understanding Sarah Palin's Appeal

Sometimes, I encounter something I just don't completely understand. Something I can't totally get my head around. For example, I know a lot of people watch "So You Think You Can Dance" and "Dancing With the Stars". Why? I have no idea. I can't possibly imagine why anyone would want to watch either of those shows, but there they are every week, someone must be watching (and don't tell me it's dancers or people who used to dance. I used to play basketball, it doesn't make me want to watch Tom Delay play basketball). Another example, I don't like onions. I know people who love onions, on a burger, in onion rings, my little sister is a huge fan of the awesome blossom. Every time I accidentally bite into an onion, I wonder how anyone could possibly enjoy that flavor (sometimes i hear people say onions are sweet, I've never tasted a sweet onion in my life, maybe my taste buds are broken).

Usually, I don't care about these little things, people enjoy what they enjoy, and I don't, and that's fine. But sometimes this happens with relatively important things. I'm fairly convinced Sarah Palin is going to run for president in three years, that's important, and yet I can't understand what anyone sees in her. Not that she's unlikeable personally, but I feel like, based on what we currently know about her, the number of people who want her to be the president should be zero. And yet, the actual number of people who want her to be the president is considerably higher than zero. So, I feel like I need to understand this. Why are people so excited about the almost one-term Governor of Alaska as a national candidate?

I've heard people suggest that conservatives (in particular, social conservatives) are excited about her level of ideological purity. I don't buy this. For one thing, there are plenty of conservatives who are at least as ideologically pure as Sarah Palin. How do I know this? Because I see them on TV every night agreeing with every word she says. Why don't millions of conservatives want Bill Kristol or Ann Coulter to be the next president? Also, am I the only one who gets uncomfortable when a leading political party starts talking so much about any kind of purity? I hope not, I actually heard a Republican on TV the other day use the word "purge". Not good. So no, I'm not really buying the purity argument.

Is it just because she's relatively attractive? This one has some merit at first glance. Attractiveness is always relative, and when you compare Sarah Palin to other prominent women in politics, let's just say her stock doesn't go down. Also, I think a lot of people, when they picture Sarah Palin, actually picture Tina Fey, who is way cuter than her TV character is supposed to be. But this argument falls apart pretty quickly too. I'll go to the Ann Coulter well again. I'm sure some people think Ann's as attractive as other people think Sarah Palin is (I don't know any of them, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere). No one is pushing Coulter in 2012, at least I hope not. I've heard people suggest that Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is attractive, and nobody wants her to be the president (if you don't know who she is yet, you're just going to have to trust me, you don't want her in charge of anything, if you made a list of the craziest people in the U.S., she'd absolutely be in the top 10).

Also, I know attractiveness is always a positive accessory for politicians of both genders (look at John Edwards, apparently, he was a total sleazeball, but people thought he was a really good guy and I'd say it's because he kind of reminded them of Alex P. Keaton). Still, I'd like to think it's nothing more than that, just an accessory, something we appreciate in an otherwise good candidate, but not something that gets us behind otherwise meritless candidates. Am I giving America too much credit here? Maybe, but that doesn't really sound like something I'd do.

Maybe it's just because she's young and new and exciting. Like a shiny new ball of political energy. Umm, no. You've met the Republican party, right? This is the party that has recently given us Bob Dole and John McCain. Do any of the adjectives in that first sentence sound like anything Republicans generally get behind? No, no they don't.

I was lost on this issue, ready to give up. Then, last night, I heard something that pointed me in a new direction. Chris Matthews, who may be loud and obnoxious, but who's also right on target with political analysis more often then not, pointed out that he sees a lot of George W. Bush in Sarah Palin. At first, this may sound a little silly. He's an old guy from Texas, she's a relatively young woman from Alaska. He's from one of the most powerful families in America, she grew up in a pretty regular home. But actually, Matthews is dead on with this, here's how.

Both parties, when it suits them, have a certain anti-intellectual streak. It's one of the easiest ways to get votes. People always like candidates who they believe are like them in some way. Look around you for a second, go ahead, take a look. Do you see some stupid people? You bet you do. There's quite a bit of political advantage in convincing people that you're not some smarty-pants egghead who's better then them. George W. Bush did a great job at this in his first campaign. He was plain spoken, he didn't seem to know a lot of details about important things, but he seemed confident he had the gist of it. People really saw him as a regular guy.

The problem, usually, is that we know these politicians aren't really as dumb as they sometimes pretend to be. Take George W. Bush. He gets made fun of a lot for being stupid, acting stupid, using words that aren't actually words (this, by the way, was one of my favorite things about the former President, I say he was the Commander in Chief, and if he said it was a word, then it was a word). The truth is, he may not be as smart as we want a president to be, but there's a lot of room between smart enough to be the president and stupid. The guy has two Ivy League diplomas. He may not be a rocket scientist, but he's no backwoods yokel either, and he's smarter then most people. I think people generally understand this about most politicians, so there's always sort of an uneasy following of guys who go along with the anti-intellectualism, as if we're giving them credit for at least pretending to be like everyone else, but we know they aren't really.

This brings us back to Sarah Palin. I obviously don't know her personally, and I have no idea what she may really be like. She could be some kind of secret genius like Lauren Conrad in that Family Guy episode. But, from everything I've seen of her on TV and read about her, I've come to this conclusion. Sarah Palin might be an actual moron. Would a smart person think you could quit your job as Governor for no particular reason and still successfully run for president? (even Dick Morris said this was a bad idea, Dick Morris!) Would a smart person pick a fight with David Letterman, a guy with a nightly megaphone from which he can shout back at you and nothing to lose? Would a smart person, in the middle of a presidential campaign, do multiple interviews for which she wasn't prepared on basic issues?

My point is, there's politically useful dumb and there's actual dumb. While most politicians are the former, it's possible that Sarah Palin is the latter. Is dumb too mean? Fine, for those of you who are sensitive, you can use intellectually unremarkable. Either way, I think that's why some people are so excited about her. I was excited about Barack Obama because after years of trying to get excited about politicians who were pretending to be what I'm looking for in a candidate, I saw a guy who might actually be many of those things. I think some people feel the same way about Sarah Palin. After years of trying to get excited about politicians who pretend to just be regular, average, unremarkable folks, they see someone who might actually be one.

I'd wrap up by saying Democrats should be careful what they wish for if they're wishing for the Republicans to nominate Palin in 2012, but I just can't get myself there. I can't see her having to debate Barack Obama three times and still being able to win anything. When the last campaign ended, I thought maybe if she went back to Alaska for a couple of years, really got knowledgeable on some issues and came back with her charisma and charm coupled with some surprising policy chops, she'd be a real contender. Instead, she quit her job, wrote a book and went on Oprah. I don't get the sense she's spending a lot of time reading up on world issues or domestic policy proposals.

So, instead of telling Democrats to be careful, I'll tell Republicans to be careful. Because, if my theory is right, the two years of campaigning that starts in January of 2011 will get her base of supporters even more excited about her, but it'll give everyone else a chance to see what she really is. If Republicans don't find another candidate the rest of the party can rally around, they'll wind up with a nominee that can't possibly win. Look, I said at the beginning, I like Sarah Palin personally. During the VP debate last year, I remember commenting to a friend that Sarah Palin should get her own TV show, which I then quickly upgraded to her own TV network, she's incredibly entertaining. But if she wins the Republican nomination, the rest of the Republicans should probably find a better party to join. And if she somehow wins the presidency (let's say Barack Obama randomly decides to sell the Rocky Mountains to China, which they then immediately re-name the Rocky Maotains, that might do it) then we should all move to Norway. I may finally have a good theory to explain Sarah Palin's appeal, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

The Fall Of An Empire

Before I start, quick prediction for this weekend's big Pacquiao vs. Cotto fight. I like Cotto, 7th or 8th round KO. Cotto's only loss was to a guy who was later suspended for basically filling his gloves with cement, so Cotto is still undefeated in my book. Cotto's a little bit naturally bigger and stronger, and I'm not sure Pacquiao can put him down. I've seen Pacquiao get frustrated and sloppy in the past when he can't get someone out early, I know he's a much more well-rounded fighter now, but I still think some of that impatience comes out here and Cotto gets an impressive win. OK, on to the blog.

I just spent a few minutes looking 25 years into the future (that new Droid thing from Verizon has an application for viewing the future) and I was very concerned about something I saw. I saw a once mighty empire in ruins, old venerable buildings in disrepair, unemployed 350 pound men wandering the landscape. It was terrible.

Am I talking about the American empire? Nope. I think we'll be fine. I've already said, we may be the ancient Romans, but I'm not scared of the Canadians, even if they've improved and expanded on the Soviet Union's snow-powered missile technology. No, I'm talking about a much larger, richer and more powerful empire, the National Football League. You might ask, "what could possibly be wrong with the NFL?". And most people would probably say the short answer to that question is "nothing" and the long answer to that question is "nooooooothinggggggggg". I disagree, and I'll tell you why.

It starts with something that's annoying me a bit today. It seems there's an NFL game tonight. Not a scrimmage or a pre-season game they forgot to play, an actual regular season game. It's on the NFL network. I assume the plan is to get people to buy the NFL network or demand that their cable provider add the NFL network because they want to see these late-season Thursday night games (by the way, if that is the plan, we're not off to a very good start. Tonight's final score was San Francisco 10, Chicago 6. Two pretty mediocre teams playing a game that must have been torture to watch, get it together NFL). This is kind of a crappy thing to do, but I don't really care, that's not why I think it's a problem.

This is the hubris of unnecessary expansion, this is the NHL setting up a team in Phoenix, or Napoleon invading Russia. The NHL didn't need a team in the desert, because sand and hockey generally don't mix. Napoleon didn't need Russia, because I'm sure he could get all the beets and vodka he needed in France. The NFL doesn't need its own network. They only play four months a year, and in those four months they only have like 8 actual games on their network. What are they supposed to do with the rest of the time? I have a feeling we'll eventually spend a lot of time finding out what cheerleaders do in the off-season (I really wanted to make a stripping joke here, but I'm sure most of them are very nice young ladies). Either that or we'll be monitoring the rate of stubble growth on Brett Favre's face while he decides whether or not to play for the 2015 Los Angeles Jaguars (by 2020 they'll rename this team the Los Angeles Half-Empty Stadiums). This is always one of the first signs of an empire about to collapse, so it got me looking around, and I found some other problems.

It's never a good thing when the poor and underprivileged in your empire get to the point of hopelessness. Not everyone can be rich, but a healthy empire creates opportunity for people to pull themselves up and make a better life. Look at some of the awful franchises in the NFL, even when they have one or two good seasons, they're still awful. Tampa won a Superbowl and they're still a joke. Whole neighborhoods of the NFL (like the NFC west) are in total disarray. Meanwhile, the ruling class, like, say, my New England Patriots, go about their affluent business, barely noticing the untouchable Rams and Buccaneers. It's a sad state of affairs, and a very bad thing.

On top of that, people in the NFL don't seem to be allowed to have fun anymore. The Germans always have this problem. They're very good at building empires, but it's always all business, no fun. Next thing you know, Allied troops are rolling into Berlin and there's nothing you can do about it. And everyone remembers that day in 121 A.D. when Emperor Hadrian outlawed celebratory dancing after chariot race wins. Rome was never the same. Every Sunday during the NFL season, I see at least two plays that leave me wondering how the guy who was carrying the ball still has his head attached to the rest of him. Are we really that worried about the social impact of someone dancing around like an idiot after a touchdown?

Finally, I'm concerned about competing leagues. Usually, a young and thriving empire starts out with conquering a few semi-worthy foes, then you get a long period where everyone just sort of leaves them alone. But then, you start to get new challengers to the suddenly old and lethargic empire, the first ones are no problem, but they get more and more feisty until, one day, Visigoths are setting your house on fire.

Well, the NFL dispatched the AFL and USFL with ease and poise. Then Arena football came along, they just sort of did their own thing and didn't bother anyone. But then, a couple of years ago, my buddy Dave pointed me to the website for the AAFL. What a mess. An awful combination of guys you never heard of and guys you just think you never heard of because they were so forgettable. This league folded before they even played a game (they had a draft though, so good for them). I think it technically still exists, but I'm not exactly getting money together for my season tickets.

Now, we have the UFL, they're actually playing. Not a threat yet, but you can see the competition improving with each try. Eventually, I think someone gets it right. The key will be getting Vegas to promote gambling on your league the way they do with the NFL (no problem there) and getting sports websites to create fantasy football around your league that can compete with NFL fantasy football (big problem there). Still, I think someone gets it done, and maybe sooner then we think. Not to worry though football fans, if we've learned anything from historical empires it's that whenever one collapses, there's another one around the corner. Well usually, hopefully we're not heading for football dark ages.

What The Hell Happened To...

Education?

I've worked at a couple of different colleges now. I'm not that much older than the kids starting college these days, but it seems as if quite a bit has already changed about pre-college education in this country since I was there. Kids don't seem to be learning certain things anymore, like math, or spelling, or how to write or speak in full sentences. Sure, some kids are picking this stuff up at home (or on the mean streets of Sesame) but the preponderance of the evidence tells me they're not getting this stuff from school anymore. So what the hell happened to education?

I have some theories. Most of these things were already present when I was in school, but have since conspired to lead to some sort of breakdown. Also, keep in mind that I went to Catholic school because, well, my parents correctly diagnosed New York City public schools as suckariffic and thought I'd be better off. Anyway, who's to blame for this mess? A few different groups, starting with...

Foreigners. Actually, this is probably less about actual foreign people and more about egghead multi-nationalists. At some point, someone decided American children needed to learn second languages. I would have no objection to this if most of us actually spoke two languages, but we don't. I took two years of Spanish in elementary school (I think, it's possible I'm making that up), four more in high school and four semesters of Spanish in college. If you dropped me into the middle of Spain right now, I'd be able to say hello and goodbye, count to ten, order a Coca-Cola and ask where the library is (I wouldn't actually be able to get to the library, because I wouldn't understand anyone's answer to my biblioteca query). And I'm not a stupid guy, I went to college for free, and it wasn't because of my awesome jump shot.

Why is this a problem? Look at how much time I wasted not learning Spanish. 200 minutes a week for six full school years and then four semesters of college. Imagine what I could be doing right now if I had spent that time learning something I could use, or at least something I could remember.

Solution? Find a way to teach kids languages in a way that will, ya know, work. Maybe this means starting them earlier. Maybe this means spending more time on conversational uses and less time conjugating verbs. I think it would be great if most Americans spoke multiple languages, but do we care enough to make it happen? I don't know, but fix it, or stop trying. One or the other.

Who's next? Christians. I don't like picking on Christians, really. I know a lot of Christians, they're mostly nice people, I used to be one myself. And maybe this one isn't really the fault of actual Christians, but rather the fault of people who exploit their faith for votes. But isn't it interesting that America's fall to something like 804th in the world in science education seems to have coincided with this whole neoconservative thing about not teaching children evolution? And I know, I just said I went to Catholic school, and I didn't turn out so bad. But, I know more about Genesis than I do about, say, chemistry or calculus, and I'm not sure this is a good thing.

Solution? This is an easy one. When people say they want you to teach stuff in science class that isn't, um, factually accurate, politely tell them no and move on. Everybody has to get on board with this though (I'm looking at you Republicans) because as long as some of the people in charge keep pushing to allow science class to also be catechism time, we'll keep having this stupid debate that teaches kids that there's no scientific difference between stuff you can prove and stuff you just believe in.

And speaking of Christians, George W. Bush. No Child Left Behind was actually pretty well named, because if you don't go anywhere, you can't leave anyone behind. President Bush did the worst thing you can do with a serious problem. He proposed something that looked and sounded like a good idea, so everyone stopped paying attention, then his administration executed this idea as poorly as possible (this, by the way, is the real legacy of the Bush administration, not actually terrible ideas executed unbelievably poorly).

I will, however, take one idea from the former president. I'm a big fan of national standardized testing. I hear a lot of teachers complain that they wind up teaching to the test. This tells me the current tests don't focus on things kids actually need to know. If that's the case, we'll have to fix that, if that's not the case, then everyone shut up.

Last problem? Unions. This is a surprising one for me. I'm generally a big supporter of unions, I was sort of raised that way. But, a while ago I wrote that I'm generally against big government programs, but I support health care because we need it and it's too important. I feel the same way about teachers unions, only the exact opposite. Education is too important, we shouldn't have anything standing in the way of our ability to reprimand, discipline or fire bad teachers.

This leads me toward my big solution for education, which starts with the teachers. Teachers should be making huge, six figure salaries. Being a teacher should be like being a doctor or a lawyer, something the smart people want to do when they get to college because that's where the money is. That's my pitch to the teachers. Yes, if you're a bad teacher, I'll want you to start working on your "would you like fries with that?" (yes, by the way, I'd love some fries right now), but if you're a good teacher, you don't need union protection and I'm planning to double or triple or quadruple your salary.

Add this to my other solutions: Spend more time teaching kids things they can actually use, in ways that will actually work, no more religion in schools (this means school prayer too, don't even get me started on that) and national standardized tests to pass each grade that actually test kids on the things they need to know. I think this is a pretty good start and could, mostly, be done pretty quickly.

My Republican friends will say we don't need a big national education thing, that communities and school boards and parents know more about what their kids need to be learning in school. No, they really, really don't. I can't emphasize how little I want parents and local politicians involved in this plan.

How do you pay for it? I don't know, do I look like some kind of economist? We're probably going to have to raise taxes. I don't know why people are so willing to spend money to invade countries but when it comes to public education and health care it's all about the fiscal discipline. Actually, maybe I do know, maybe they went to crappy schools.

What The Hell Happened To...

Boxing?

Welcome to the first in my, let's say, 52 part series where I pick something that used to be good, and now isn't, or something that used to be relevant in some way and seems to be disappearing or seems to have already disappeared and talk about why. Even though this is about boxing, it doesn't count as a sports Friday thing, because it's really more of a cultural commentary. Not buying that? OK, how about because I said so?

This weekend I watched the Strikeforce MMA event on CBS. I don't get HBO anymore, so I'm stuck with whatever I can get on free TV, which is usually some version of MMA. I learned a couple of things. First, we are officially ancient Rome. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only barbarians to the north are the Canadians, and unless they have a secret plan to coat us all in maple syrup and take over the country while we're blissfully licking ourselves clean, I'm not that worried. Still, if you know any Visigoths or Huns, don't turn your back on them, just to be safe.

Most importantly, I learned that MMA isn't that great. I saw four fights. The first two were typically forgettable undercard fodder, highlighted by some guy with a huge, and I mean HUGE, head. I think he lost. The third match was awful. Five rounds, five minutes long each, all unwatchable. I should be able to sue CBS and Strikeforce to get that 30 minutes of my life back. A boring MMA fight is SO much worse than a boring boxing match. You don't really know a boxing match is boring until about the 6th round when you realize nobody is doing anything. 45 seconds into a bad MMA match, when the two guys are just sort of rolling around on the ground, you already know it's going to be a long night.

The main event on the MMA card was legitimately good. This was Fedor Emelianenko, who I'm told is considered possibly the best MMA fighter in world, and maybe ever, fighting some huge dude from Chicago (where the fight was being held) named Brett Rogers. The first punch of the fight destroyed Emelianenko's nose. He spent the rest of the fight bleeding all over the place, and since MMA involves a lot more clinching and, dare I say, grappling, all over the place included all over his opponent. About two minutes into round 2, after about 7 minutes of profuse, unstoppable bleeding, Emelianenko landed a huge punch right to Rogers' chin and Rogers collapsed like a Saddam Hussein statue circa 2003.

My point is, this wasn't any better than a typical boxing card. A couple of forgettable fights, one bad one, one really good one with a legitimate Ohhh! moment. If anything, it was worse, because, as I said before, a boring boxing match is still semi-watchable. A bad MMA match is absolutely unbearable, they should turn the cameras off. And yet, I always here how MMA is taking over, stealing boxing's market, becoming the new big fighting sport, and it seems to be true. So, what the hell happened to boxing?

I've heard experts complain that there aren't any good American heavyweights anymore, so no one in the U.S. cares about the premier weight class. I think this is a misdiagnoses. I don't think it has as much to do with a lack of good American heavyweights as it does with the lack of good heavyweights period. Ring magazine has Wladimir Klitschko (the W is silent, in that it will remain silent and not complain when you pronounce it like a V) as the world's top heavyweight. Somewhere around six years ago, I watched Klitschko get absolutely destroyed by some guy named Corrie Sanders, who I remember being described before the fight as a journeyman long shot who doubled as a golf pro or something, but then after he dismantled Klitschko, the guys on HBO couldn't wait to tell me how Sanders was a rough and tough fighter with a devistating left hand. Someone probably should have mentioned that to Wladimir before the fight.

I know people get better at what they do, and Klitschko has certainly gotten better. But still, would Ali have lost to Corrie Sanders? would young Foreman have? or Frazier? or young Tyson? or Joe Louis? I don't think so. We expect a certain level of dominance out of the heavyweight champ, a feeling of invincibility, which he carries around until he gets beaten by the next great champion. We're not getting it from Klitschko.

I also hear a lot of boxing experts talk about the alphabet soup of champions. I think this is a lot like people who complain about the DH, it's not an argument completely devoid of merit, but I don't think most fans actually care. The problem, I think, is that nobody knows who most of the champions are. If the champions in each weight class were the three or four best fighters at that weight and were promoted properly as such, I honestly don't think it would be a huge problem. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. In fact, I think I was the WBA middleweight champ for a couple of months. OK super middleweight...OK light heavyweight. My point is, we've got a lot of crappy champions.

And, even if we didn't have a lot of crappy champions, we wouldn't know it. Boxing seems to have gone out of its way to be as inaccessible as possible. Way to much pay-per-view, nothing on free television. It's like they're following the NHL's new "hey, we've got this great event, now we dare you to try to find it on your television" model. Only they've been doing it for like 25 years now, and on purpose. I know you can make money on pay-per-view, but not if nobody cares.

So, here's my suggestion, and it's so simple. Professional Boxing League. I'm sure somebody has already thought of this, but I'm thinking of it again. First, you form this league and you sign all the boxers to contracts negotiated the same way you negotiate all athlete contracts, based on talent and ability to draw (draw fans to events, although I'd enjoy it if the NFL payed guys based on their ability to make drawings. If that was the case, and there was a website that posted all the drawings, would you absolutely spend too much time there? Me too).

Second, you set up the TV schedule. I'd do it a lot like pro wrestling (which, by the way, has a what the hell happened to... blog coming its way soon). One or two weekly shows in prime time, featuring actual good fights with the top stars. You could still do pay-per-views, not as many as wrestling does now, maybe four a year. But, the pay-per-views wouldn't be a bunch of crappy undercard fights followed by an even crappier two round destruction of some poor, overmatched heavyweight who shouldn't even be allowed to look at a championship belt, let along fight for one. The pay-per-views would be main event after main event.

Like wrestling, all these good fights I've got scheduled would require the boxing league to build up stars. But that's one of my main points, boxing already has plenty of potential stars, it's just that, at the moment, very few people care. This would be the most important component of the boxing league. It would be run by smart people, who know boxing and whose only financial interest would be the success of the league, not individual fighters. Commissioner Bert Sugar has a nice ring to it. So does Deputy Commissioner Max Kellerman. They'd schedule the fights and decide who gets title shots. They could build a strong sport with proven champions, something in which people would be very interested.

I know, some fighters won't want to do it, promoters will hate it, the current organizations that run boxing will hate it even more. Fighters will swallow it if the guaranteed league contracts are big enough, and once you get enough guys on board, the rest will have to follow or they won't have anyone to fight. Buy off the organizations, give them a big bag full of money up front, or a percentage of the profits for some time moving forward. Again, if you're signing the boxers, they'll have to take it or leave it. And the promoters, screw those guys.

The bottom line is I don't care. Do you want to save the sport and keep it somewhat relevant? Then do this, or something else. I don't care what they do, and I don't care if everyone likes it, as long as they do something. I like boxing, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life watching MMA fighters roll around on the floor with each other.

Game 6

Since I picked the Yankees in six, and since I have a feeling they'll get it done tonight, I thought I'd document the occasion for posterity. (and yes, I know I'm, um, borrowing the idea of running commentary on a live sporting event from probably many other people, most notably Bill Simmons, of whom I'm a big fan. But since I don't get paid for this or anything, I feel I can steal whatever ideas I want, so there). Also, I realize that I usually do sports on Fridays, but I haven't been to work yet this week, so I have very little feel for what day it is.

I could give you the highlights of the pre-game show, but I refuse to awknowledge Fox's pre-game show unless it's to say how terrible it is, so how about a few thoughts on yesterday's elections while we wait for baseball to start.

1. Chris Christie actually sounded kind of interesting in his acceptance speech, maybe New Jersey has something there. Once he gets into office, if he comes up with at least one new idea that isn't actually just a tax cut, I'll stop calling him Governor Fatpants.
2. Listen up Maine! I need California, they make TV shows, I don't need you, I've never eaten a lobster in my life, and I don't plan to. Get it together.
3. Kudos to everyone in my old hometown, NYC. You let Mike Bloomberg completely disregard his term limit and then buy an election. He now officially owns you, well done. (and kudos to the NYC democratic party for offering a candidate that couldn't beat a guy who's about two steps away from declaring himself king and renaming the city Bloombergistan).

Between the pre-game show and the actual game, we get the little pre-game chat with our announcers, Tim McCarver and Joe Buck. Let me just say two things. First, one day, there will be a McCarverless world series, and I will rejoice. Second, they mostly talked about Andy Pettitte pitching on three days rest. Can I have a job where it's a big controversy when I only get three days off between work days? And yes, I realize on two of those three days, Andy had to come to work and watch his co-workers work, I'm willing to do that too.

Play Ball! (apparently brought to us by Budweiser)

1st Inning
The Home Depot tool to victory for the Phillies, courtesy of McCarver, "they have to win." Excellent point.
Pettitte just made his first throw to first base, get ready for about 96 of those tonight.

Utley just grouned into a double play. I wanted Pettitte to hit him with a fastball, I guess Andy's plan was better. By the way, if the Phillies win this series, I say they melt down the Liberty Bell and the Rocky statue and build a giant Utley statue.

I'm a huge Pedro fan, he's the best pitcher I've ever seen, but I wouldn't be super confident about him here. The Yankees saw his stuff last week, and it ain't what it used to be. This opinion just got supported by John Ruiz visiting the mound after one pitch followed by Jeter hammering one right at the left fielder.

Buck says Damon could be the MVP if the Yankees win. Did he get drunk before the game? Also, Damon's at-bats only ever have two results, broken bat and strike out. Honestly, do they make his bats out of ice?

My favorite commercial between these innings? The Sprint 3G commercial featuring flava flav. "Buy our cell phone, this former rapper turned criminally insane reality star likes it." That may not be a direct quote.

2nd Inning
Werth hit two out against Pettitte in game 3, so you probably want to be careful with him here. The Yankees concur and put him on first, Pettitte looks sharp though, hit the corner a couple of times and ball four was right where it should have been, just off the outside. I'm pretty encouraged. Also, look at Werth's hair, he looks like he should be in a Ratt video.

People say Yankee fans are too hard on Posada's defense. Listen, I watch almost every Yankee game, they'd be better off just building a brick wall behind home plate. It would throw out the same number of runners as Jorge, but nothing would get by it.

That's funny, something is really making me want a Budweiser, I don't even like Budweiser, weird.

Pedro wants no part of A-rod, four pitch walk. I don't blame him, Pedro doesn't have his A game, Alex isn't the guy you want to go after with an 84 MPH fastball.

Bang! After a painfully long at bat, Matsui just pounded one into the second deck in right field. 2-0 Yankees. Matsui came back to the dugout making what I'd call the "that's right ladies, they call me Godzilla" face. The home run prompted the crowd to start the "who's your daddy" chant. You can do better than that Yankee fans, it's the world series! Shortly after, Posada struck out on a scorching 23 MPH fastball (I may be a little off on that). I really don't like Posada.

The commercials I'm seeing so far lead me to believe that Fox doesn't think anyone under 50 is watching. On the other hand, if you're having trouble urinating, hope is on the way!

3rd Inning
Pettitte is all over the outside corner right now. And about ten seconds after I typed that, he missed the corner by about a foot and John Ruiz crushed one off the left field wall for a triple. This led to a sac fly from Rollins, 2-1 Yankees. I might have pitched around Rollins and pitched to the guy with the broken hand, but that's just me.

Gardner just struck out, that was predictable. When I was in little league, the coaches sometimes took us to the batting cages to work on hitting. I guess what I'm saying is, can someone point Girardi and Gardner to some batting cages?

A walk to Damon gets some activity stirring in the Phillies pen, probably Happ (Yup). Pedro responds by hitting Teixiera. If Alex hits one out here, they may have to stop the game for a few minutes while the fans in the stadium riot. Alex goes down looking, that pitch may have been off the corner a little, but you don't take it with two strikes.

I'm a fan of Matsui's work tonight, 4-1 Yankees. That might have been a close play at the plate if the Phillies had thought it was even remotely possible to get Damon. When a player gets old, sometimes you say he's lost a step, Damon's lost about 12 steps. Also, I think Posada means rally killer in Spanish.

4th Inning
Damon's night is done, he pulled a calf muscle. (you mean his legs were working properly before? yikes) You might think I'd remove my previous comment about Damon losing 12 steps, but I've been thinking that for about 6 months, and he only pulled his calf about 6 minutes ago, so it stays.

Back-to-back walks to Werth and Ibanez. Next up is Ruiz, Pettitte just put five pitches in the same spot for three balls and two strikes. I'm wondering if we can get baseball umpires access to some kind of book or manual that describes the rules of baseball. "The strike zone doesn't move" would be chapter 4.

Fox has been advertising tomorrow night's TV line-up all night. Do they know something we don't know?

Giuliani's in the house. I still think he would have made a pretty good President, too bad he made an awful, awful candidate. If he could just find a way to be appointed President without having to campaign or anything, I think he'd do a solid job.

Gardner's up again, the home audience can get a head start on their between-inning bathroom breaks if they want.

5th Inning
Pettitte just walked Ruiz, not a good sign. That was followed by one of my favorite moments in TV sports, when the sports announcer reads a promo for whatever crappy show the network is pushing, always hilarious, I think I like it the most when the NASCAR announcers read a promo for one of ABC's barely coherent shows.

Double play ball from Rollins. The Phillies only have, at most, six outs before they have to deal with Rivera, heart of the order up next inning, it's go time.

The Phillies have gone with Chad Durbin for the 5th inning, let's just say the Yankee hitters don't look terrified. Jeter starts things off with a ground rule double, followed by a Hairston bunt(I wasn't a fan of this idea, but he got it down, so whatever).

Perfect spot here for a struggling Teixiera, all he needs is a fly ball. This can usually help a guy focus and get a good swing, and there it is, 5-1 Yankees on a line drive single. A-Rod gets hit by a 3-2 pitch and Charlie Manuel has seen enough of Chad Durbin, I think we all have.

Six RBI's tonight for Matsui, 7-1 Yankees. Good thing they don't riot for sporting events in Japan like we do here, because if they did they might set the whole country on fire if Matsui wins the MVP. Also, it may be time for Philadelphia sports fans to start talking themselves into the Eagles.

Of course, Posada struck out, but luckily, he's not able to actually take runs back off the board, so he's done all the damage he can. And Cano goes down too, I think those two may need to sit quietly for a minute.

6th Inning
Buck's been talking for about 5 minutes straight, is McCarver napping?

Joba's up in the Yankee pen, a truly terrifying sight for Yankee fans. Howard just took Pettitte deep, opposite field too, that dude is strong. 7-3 Yankees, and here comes Girardi. Surprise move, he left Pettitte in, not sure that was wise, we'll see.

Well, Pettitte got Werth but Ibanez drilled one into right. Pettitte's done. Really solid work by Pettitte, good ovation from the crowd. Giradi's bringing Joba in to face Feliz, which makes perfect sense because last time Joba faced Feliz, Feliz hit one that hasn't landed yet, so...wait, this doesn't make any sense, but it worked anyway, that's baseball for ya. Three outs to Rivera.

This week's NFL coverage on Fox will be highlighted by the Cardinals visiting the Bears. In other words, not a great week of games in the NFL.

After Gardner stared at strike three right over the plate, Manuel decided it was time to bring Chan Ho Park into the game. Much like with Chad Durbin, I don't see the Yankee hitters being especially nervous about this. Did the Phillies leave their real bullpen at home or something?

Apparently today's box score is brough to us by a movie called "The Box". I wonder which came first, the movie or the endorsement opportunity.

Well, Park got Jeter and Hairston, so there you go.

7th Inning
Joba mowed down Francisco, but Ruiz hit one hard into center. Ground ball from Rollins. You have to get Victorino out here, he definitely has at least one broken bone somewhere in his hand. Joba proceeds to walk him on four pitches, and he's done. Here comes Damaso Marte to face Utley, and I'm about a -2 out of 10 on the confidence scale. Buck points out that Marte only gave up one home run to a lefty this year. Good point Joe, except that Marte spent most of the year hurt or sucking, so he didn't get a lot of chances. However, at the moment, he's neither hurt nor sucking, he just put Utley away. Six outs left for the Phillies, and if Rivera doesn't start the 8th, you'd better believe he'll be coming in as soon as we see someone on base.

Something was just brought to us by DJ Hero, but I'm not sure what. By the way, I love that idea, a game that let's you pretend to have the talent to do something that requires no actual talent.

They walked Posada intentionally to get to Cano after Matsui struck out, which I guess makes sense, but not really. Why not just take the out from Posada to end this inning, then you could get Cano out to start the next inning. I guess the Phillies think Posada might get a hit, have they been watching the same game I have? I don't even have to tell you what happened next, but you can probably guess that Cano didn't hit a three run home run.

8th Inning
Marte is starting the 8th. A lot of Yankee fans are probably a little nervous about this, but I actually don't hate this move. It's a four run game, the more outs other guys can get, the harder Mariano can go. I probably would have let Marte face Werth and Ibanez, but I'm not Girardi, so here comes Rivera. Kudos to Fox for showing us at least part of Mariano's run into the stadium.

Werth down swinging, four outs left. Rivera just destroyed Ibanez's bat, foul ball though. Tough at bat for Ibanez, broken bat, a couple of jammed pop-ups and that last one looked like he fouled it off his face, but he finished by hitting one hard to center. What was Gardner doing that far in? Does he have a train to catch as soon as the inning's over? Pop-up for the third out, no harm, no foul. Hey, how many runs would the Yankees have to score in the bottom of the 8th for Girardi to put someone else in to pitch the 9th? 16? 60? 6 billion?

Lots of commercials tonight for crappy-looking movies. The only movie coming out soon worth seeing is The Men Who Stare at Goats. That movie can't miss, just the fact that it's based on a true story should be enough to have you laughing pretty much the whole time.

Either McCarver's been pretty quiet tonight or I've learned to block him out. Swisher just got thrown out on a ridiculously slow ground ball. Did he stop to make a phone call on the way to first? Did he get lost?

I honestly don't care what the Yankees do in this inning, they have all the runs they should need.

Fox's commercials for Bones are intolerable. You couldn't pay me to watch that show just because of how much I hate the commercials.

9th Inning
Matt Stairs just hit one that almost left the stadium, but it went foul. Next pitch lined right at Jeter, two outs left. Having Rivera on your team is the best thing is sports. It's unbelievable how sure I am that this game is over.

Rollins just got the nervous gasp out of the stadium crowd on his way to the second out on a long fly ball to right, one more.

Quick shot of Charlie Manuel working on his "hey, we won last year, so shut up" face.

Victorino grounds out to Cano, cue Sinatra, we're done here. Wait, they're not playing Sinatra? OK, whatever.

If I had an MVP vote, I'd probably say Jeter, nothing flashy, but lots of hits in the series. I could see Mariano too, he's so automatic, you don't notice how valuable he is. I know Matsui looks good after tonight, but he didn't even start half the games.

I think, if we learned anything tonight, it's that I picked the Yankees in 6 a month ago, and I'm awesome.

Equal Rights

I'm off work for the next few days, which means, among other things, some extra TV watchin'. Today I was sort of half watching some political news about tomorrow's different elections and I saw something that really annoyed me. Was I annoyed by the actual elections? No, in fact, quite the opposite. I'm amused by the possibility of Virginia having a Governor named Mr. Deeds. And I'm very amused by Jon Corzine and his fuzzy, fuzzy beard. No, I was annoyed by something else which, as you know, means it's time for a blog.

It seems that, sometime earlier this year, the state of Maine passed a law legalizing same sex marriage. Good so far, this is how it's supposed to work. I don't want the federal government anywhere near this issue. State legislatures will, one by one, do the right thing and eventually, everyone will be able to get married in every state. Eventually. (sorry Alabama homosexuals, it's gonna be a while, but honestly, why are you still living in Alabama? A lot of those rednecks really don't like you). I suddenly became annoyed because, tomorrow, the good people of Maine will be voting on a referendum designed to overturn this newly passed law. California did something similar last year, although their ballot issue overturned a court decision, but the end result was the same, people had rights for a little while, then they didn't again. So here's my question.

How did we get to the point in this country where peoples' rights are up for a majority vote and we're OK with it? I'm a straight guy, why should I have any say in whether or not homosexuals can get married? I mean, I get to state my opinion, like I am now, and so does everyone else, but a vote, that actually matters? Where did we get the idea that we need to ask for a show of hands on everything?

I'm not going to complain about that anymore though, because, as I've said before, I'm a solutions guy. So if we're going to have ballot issues all over the country on this issue, which seems pretty much inevitable at this point, the solution would seem to be to persuade people to vote the right way. And how do we persuade boys and girls? That's right, we mock people who don't agree with us and call them stupid (that's how I do it, how do you do it?). OK fine, I won't call anyone stupid. Honestly, I don't think people who vote against same sex marriage are stupid, I just think they're being mislead by people who have no problem lying for votes.

Let me first say this. If you're against same sex marriage on moral grounds, because of your religion, I'm going to tell you why you're wrong in a minute, but you have every right to feel that way. However, if you call yourself a conservative, but you want government to be in the business of telling us what types of people are allowed to get married, you need to sit down and be quiet for a while, because the grown-ups are talking. This has nothing to do with actual, small government conservatism and everything to do with the social conservatives that have hijacked the Republican party. You can be someone who wants the government to enforce your religious values, or you can be for small government, but you can't be both.

Here are some of the main arguments you'll hear against same sex marriage, and why they're, ya know, wrong. I'd like to do this part quickly so I can get to my main points. So here goes.

First, sanctity of marriage. This is nonsense. Even the lawyer for proposition eight in California, the one that banned gay marriage, recently admitted that he has no evidence that gay marriage actually has any adverse effect on other marriages or any idea how it might. So, this is just a claim that people made up to fight something they don't like, but they have no evidence to support it and can't even really speculate as to how it might be true.

Second, the bible. Most discussions of homosexuality and the bible end up in the book of Leviticus. So, here's an idea, go read Leviticus. Go ahead, I'll wait. Done yet? OK. Now, you tell me, do you think we should be doing everything you just read? Me neither. I realize this seems kind of lazy and I could have spent more time actually telling you what this particular book of the bible says, but you really don't want to get me started on that, we'd be here all day (well, I'd be here all day, you'd stop reading at some point).

Third, the slippery slope. This is the argument that says, if we start moving the line on marriage, then it's a free-for-all for polygamists and people who want to marry their pets. This makes sense until you think about it for two minutes. This isn't a debate about moving the line, we've moved it before, interracial marriage used to be illegal. Now it's not. This is a debate about what goes on each side of the line, society will always have the ability to keep stuff that doesn't make sense on the other side.

So why should you care? Two reasons.

First, even if you don't know it, everyone has a friend, or a family member, or a neighbor who is homosexual, or bisexual. You know they deserve the same rights as everyone else. In a democracy, minorities who are being denied equal rights always need members of the majority to help them stand up for their rights. I'm not saying everyone needs to go to rallies or protests or marches, just use your vote. If you won't stand up for your friends, who will?

Second reason, and last point. I don't care about gay rights nearly as much as I care about equal rights. There will always be money and votes in dividing people, in singling out a certain group and telling everyone to be afraid of them, and there will always be people willing to take advantage of that. Eventually, those people will move on from homosexuals and find someone else to marginalize. Who's next? I don't know, but if you vote against same sex marriage, you're gonna feel pretty stupid if it's you.