A Christmas Quorum

Twas the night before Christmas
and all through the House...and Senate
not a creature was stirring
not even a mouse...or Senator Bob Bennett

The stockings were hung
in the cloakrooms with care
in the hopes that campaign contributions
would soon be in there

The lame duck Congress worked hard
in their own special way
sometimes they voted
on more than one thing a day!

It was jarring, alarming
amazing, stupendous
so what if some of the things
they passed were horrendous

First came a deal
on the Bush tax cuts
did they make the hard choices?
No, silly, that would be nuts

Instead they just gave everyone
whatever they wanted
tax cuts for all
and spending undaunted

And earmarks as far
as the eye could see
project after special project
pinned to the Christmas tree

The DREAM act died
on the Senate floor
Republicans say it was amnesty
sneaking in the back door

I don't care much either way
so I'm not going to panic
but Republicans; good luck winning elections
with zero votes from Hispanics

Democrats fought against
don't ask don't tell
while Republicans fretted
about unit cohesion going to hell

But you can't ask people to fight
for our country indivisible
while simultaneously asking them
to remain invisible

So finally they repealed
that bigoted piece of crap
and then...the gay army took over the world!
oh no! it was a trap!

The 9/11 first responders bill
can't get votes from 60 men
suddenly we're all worried
about deficits again

For a fraction of the cost
of tax cuts for the wealthy
we could help keep real heroes
alive and healthy

Where is the outrage and shouting
that usually abounds?
even John Q. nine-elevington himself,
Mayor Daffy Giuliani, is nowhere to be found

If that bill doesn't pass
by the end of this week
I wish everyone who blocks it
a horrible, slow, coughing death
(they don't all have to rhyme people. My blog, my rules)

Televangelist Beck railed
against the food safety act
clearly it was some kind of
big government attack

On our personal liberties
but Glenn brought the heat
defending our holy right
to eat tainted meat

The START treaty sits
unratified and useless
apparently we're still afraid of the Russians
and I have to admit to feeling a little clueless

Didn't conservative hero Reagan
single-handedly win the cold war?
isn't that why we forgive him
for being a big corporate whore?

As I write this it looks like
START will pass soon
don't worry about Russia
they couldn't even beat us to the moon

I'm not used to the federal government
doing so much so quickly
this Congress spent its first 22 months
abdicating responsibility so slickly

Frankly, I'm impressed
with the savvy of the President
some tough words for his own party
and now he's everyone's favorite D.C. resident

But success in politics is fickle
and this could all go awry
as Republicans remind their base
that he's still a black guy

For now, with everyone bitching
on the left and on the right
I hope the President understands
he must be doing something right

Moon: 2026

When I found out Russia and Qatar would be hosting the 2018 and 2022 World Cups respectively, I immediately had an idea, possibly my greatest idea ever. Maybe even the greatest idea anyone has ever had. So, as promised, here's my bid to host the 2026 World Cup...on the Moon.

First, we'll need a logo. Duh! The Moon is already round. Obviously, we just photo shop a picture of the Moon to make it look like a soccer ball, right? WRONG! We paint the actual Moon like a soccer ball. No other prospective host country could pull this off, because countries aren't round and in space. And think about the marketing implications. You wouldn't have to advertise the World Cup on TV at all, because it would be advertised in the sky every night. Right off the bat, this is the best idea you've ever heard. You know it is.

What about stadiums? I admit, the Moon, for some reason, currently has zero soccer stadiums. According to the internets, Qatar needs to build 9 soccer stadiums by 2022, having only three right now. So, the Moon only has three less soccer stadiums than Qatar, and four more years to build.

More importantly, the Moon has 1/6 of Earth's gravity, and I've decided that makes it 36 times easier to build a stadium on the Moon. So, in the time it takes Qatar to build 9 soccer stadiums, we should be able to build 324 stadiums on the Moon. We'll have stadiums to spare, which is good, because some of them might be destroyed by large meteoroids.

What about weather? Another big advantage for the Moon, because the Moon doesn't have any weather due to having essentially no atmosphere. Rain isn't even possible on the Moon, perfect for a sporting event. Who wants to see a soccer game in the rain? Not me.

Now, that no atmosphere thing may sound like a problem, what with there being no oxygen and crazy temperature extremes. Not to worry though. First of all, it snows 13 months a year in Russia (lousy Smarch weather!) and it's 152 degrees in Qatar in the summer, so don't talk to me about temperatures.

As for the oxygen problem, scuba divers breath underwater, don't they? Soccer players will have four years to practice playing in space suits. I suppose we could just build domes instead of open air stadiums, but what sounds like more fun to you? Dome soccer or space suit soccer? Yeah, I thought so, space suits it is.

What about fans? Nobody lives on the Moon. First of all, nobody lives in Qatar either. Secondly, nobody lives on the Moon...now. We're talking about 2026. For all we know, the Moon could be hopping with space cities by then. And since the Moon cities will all be named for their corporate sponsors (Budweiser Moon City, Viagra Moon Village, Citi City on the Moon, etc), you get more marketing tie-ins.

Still, like Qatar, the Moon World Cup will need plenty of visitors from other places to succeed. How will we get all those people to and from the Moon? I'm becoming concerned that we won't have our rocket cars and teleportation devices by 2026. Where's the future I was promised? George Jetson lied to me! Anyway, we've got alternatives. Maybe a giant ladder, maybe we hitch a ride with aliens, maybe we find a way to pull the Moon closer, we've got 16 years to figure this out and it seems clear that successful World Cup bids can have some holes. We'll get there. If you build it on the Moon, they will come.

At this point, you might be asking, "Sean, are you just bitter because the U.S. didn't get the 2022 World Cup?" Of course not, that's ridiculous. Why would the World Cup come to America, we don't even like soccer. The World Cup should only ever be held in England, Italy, Spain and, of course, on the Moon.

Other awesome pros for the Moon:
1) The moon is made of cheese. That's right, free cheese for everyone!
2) Krusty the Clown taught us that you can get high by freebasing ground up moon rocks, so that'll be fun.
3) MoonPies are awesome.
4) What happens on the Moon stays on the Moon.
5) There's oil everywhere on the Moon, so we can use the moon oil money to bribe...oh no wait, that's not how the Moon gets the World Cup, nevermind.

Now, to be fair, there are some concerns we'll have to deal with. The lack of gravity could mean we lose some errant balls, and maybe even a flopping South American or two, to the black void of space. We can spare the balls, and as far as I'm concerned, being lost in space is an appropriate punishment for flopping.

I'm also a little concerned about the TV broadcasts. I don't want to have to get up at 7AM to watch a soccer game. What time is it on the Moon? We'll need to get some science nerds on this, I'm sure Stephen Hawking can figure it out.

Other then those two little problems, I think we're all set. Let me ask you something. If you were going on vacation, and you had to choose between Russia, Qatar and the Moon, which would you choose? Of course you would choose the Moon. IT'S THE F*CKING MOON! And that's where I'll leave it, with a choice of slogans.

Slogan #1: "It's no stupider than Russia or Qatar."
Slogan #2: "Because it's the f*cking moon, that's why!"

Say Hello To The Bad Guy

I don't watch a whole lot of regular season basketball, and I'm not usually a fan of over-hyped sporting events in general. Last night's Lebronageddon in Cleveland fell into both of those categories, but I knew I had to watch some of it anyway. It was just too damn interesting. How, exactly, would the fans react? Booing? Derisive chants? Would some idiot or group of idiots go too far? I needed to see it.

If it were me, if I were controlling the crowd in Cleveland last night, here's what would have happened. Loud booing all through warm-ups whenever Lebron touched a ball. Then, right when he's introduced, everybody stands and turns their backs to the court. They're wearing t-shirts that say something short but effective on the back, like "Thanks for nothing", or "Cleveland: Still title free since '64", or "How are your mom and Delonte West doing?". They remain standing, backs to the court, for the entire game.

I watched the introductions and the first couple of minutes. The Cleveland fans didn't do it my way, but they did a decent job. Lots of loud booing, at least one clear "ass-hole" chant, good all-around energy. But then, it was just another basketball game, and I got distracted.

First, it was NBC's Thursday night comedies. 30 Rock is killing it lately. 30 Rock is young Mike Tyson to every other TV comedy's Michael Spinks. Also drawing my attention, my number one fantasy football wide out was kicking off in Philadelphia around 8:30. All I have to say about that is, EFF YOU MATT SCHAUB! YOU SUCK!!!

Anyway, I got distracted from the game in Cleveland for a good long time. I went back once around 9, but they were in a commercial. Next time I went back, it was the 3rd quarter and Miami was up by like 49, or 40 million, I can't remember. I immediately thought it was the saddest non-playoff sports crushing I could remember. Especially since the Cavs didn't seem to care that much, it was just the fans that were getting crushed, and they couldn't do anything about it.

Imagine you're dating a girl for like 7 years. She's awesome, maybe a little flaky, and you always wondered if you were more into her than she was into you, but still, she's just awesome. Then one day, she goes on ESPN and announces she's breaking up with you for some douchebag with lots of hair gel and shirts that are way too small for him. Then, after six months of not really talking about you that much and pretending your seven year relationship was nothing special, her and her new douchebag boyfriend come to your house, eat all your food, have sex right in front of you and poop on your carpet.

That's was the vibe I got from the Cleveland crowd by the time I made it back in the middle of the third quarter. Lebron was pooping on their carpet and having a great time doing it and they just had to sit there and take it. I don't know what to say about Cleveland at this point. Let's hope Colt McCoy's quarterbacking skills turn out to be as awesome as his name. Seriously, how much would you pay to trade names with Colt McCoy? Best sports name ever.

On the bright side, I figured out who Lebron is now. He's a bad guy, a wrestling heel. He's Hollywood Hogan, he's NWO 4Life. He ran into the ring, hit the city of Cleveland with a steel chair and mugged for the crowd with Bosh and Wade while we all threw our drinks at them. And you know what? I'm sort of on board with the Lebron heel turn.

Who doesn't like rooting against a bad guy? Plus, Lebron had sort of run his course as a good guy. And basketball needs a new bad guy. Lots of people hate Kobe, but he's starting to make the transition from bad guy to venerable old veteran we all begrudgingly respect. Lebron's a perfect bad guy too. He's big, imposing, not super likable to begin with, seems to be warming to the role, all the good guys will need to work together to take him down.

I'm a big fan of this idea. Of course, I'm not from Cleveland.

I Had An Idea!

I was watching Glenn Beck a little while ago, I still check in on Glenn a couple of times a week, just for giggles. Sometimes I wonder, if Glenn didn't talk about god all the time, what would I think of him? Do I let his constant references to faith and the creator and values negatively color my whole view of him. If Glenn were an atheist, would I still call him crazy all the time? Of course I would! Glenn's really wandered round the bend lately, but he's still as good for a laugh as he ever was.

Alas, this isn't about Glenn. While I was checking in on Glenn today, he mentioned that members of Congress make $175,000 a year, which seems to be more or less correct (as usual, I refuse to put more than 47 seconds of research into this, but I quickly found that the base salary for Congress is $174,000, and the leadership makes more, so the average is probably right around $175,000. Glenn must have taken a trip to reality to get that number, I hope he enjoyed it).

I've heard this number, or a rough estimate around it, many times before. It never bothers me, I don't care how much other people make and I generally respect the right of a person to earn whatever someone else is willing to pay them. That argument is a little more convoluted with Congress, because they vote on their own salary, so it's more like they're earning whatever they can get away with paying themselves before we riot. Still, I don't begrudge them their six figures. But today, I had an idea.

I propose we tie Congress' salaries directly to the national average wage. If the average salary of a regular working person is, say, $40,000/yr, that's what we pay Congress. When the country is doing better, Congress does better. When something bad happens, like say, a Republican President, we'll call him Donald Deagan, starts off a 30 year period of setting the economy on fire and putting it out with peasant tears, then Congress suffers a little too.

Would this cut the deficit? Not really. All the money we'd save cutting Congressional salaries would probably be enough to buy us one extra F-35 fighter jet. But it would be a nice symbolic budget cut, and since symbolic budget cuts are probably all we're getting anyway, this would be as good as any.

Do I really think this would change Congress' behavior? I don't know, maybe not. I doubt we've got a lot of people in Congress who are in it for the money (not the legit money anyway). Plus, you could argue a policy like this would create a disincentive for the best and the brightest to get into Government. That's a perfectly reasonable argument, but the current Congress isn't exactly a brain trust. You'll have a pretty hard time getting me worried about damaging the intellectual quality of Congress.

On the plus side, I could see how this could happen. First of all, politicians get voters to vote against their own interests all the time, so obviously that's possible. Secondly, wouldn't this be awesome politics. Can't see you pundits on Fox and MSNBC lauding the courageous politicians willing to cut their own salaries in order to cut spending and send a message about fiscal responsibility and solidarity with the people? How could one party publicly oppose this?

Obviously, this isn't going to happen. Look, we're at a point in time when the fortunes of the people running the country have nothing to do with the fortunes of everyone else. Why not look for a way to tie them together, just a little. So, I had an idea, not the most actionable idea I've ever had, and I'm probably not the first person to think of it, but there it is. I thought I'd share.

Ps...after I posted this, I got a little curious and found out that this is in no way an original idea, many people have had it, including some crazy people. You know what, if I had a whole bunch of totally original ideas that nobody ever thought of before, I'd be rich and I wouldn't have to go to work anymore. You can still enjoy the jokes.

Pretty Heat Machine

Like everyone else, I'm apparently so fascinated by the marriage of two British people that I can barely concentrate on anything else. So, I'm sort of mailing this one in, but I'm going to do my best, because I'm a trooper. Ready...set...blog!

Who has two thumbs and decided not to make anymore NBA predictions after last year's debacle? This guy! It makes sense, I haven't really watched the NBA since Jordan retired (which happened after the 1998 finals, and anything you think you saw after 1998 never really happened). It isn't that I stopped liking basketball all at once, I just sort of slowly drifted away, like Glenn Beck slowly drifting away from reality.

I was really a victim of NBA circumstance. I grew up with Bird and Magic, then Jordan, then? Blah. The Spurs? You would have to give me the clockwork orange treatment to get me to watch a whole Spurs game. The Lakers? I grew up a Celtics fan. Plus, I lived in New York the whole decade, so my local action consisted of watching Isaiah Thomas' attempt to burn the Knicks down and collect the insurance money.

Bottom line, I don't know anything about the NBA anymore. So, no NBA predictions this year. But, as the proud owner of an internet blog that sometimes deals with sports, I'm required by federal mandate to have an opinion about the Miami Heat, so here goes.

First of all, I'm not a big fan of this whole thing happening in Miami. I've never liked the Heat. Stupid name, ugly uniforms, by-product of the needless expansion period in all sports that stretched the NBA's talent pool a little too thin (and murdered the NHL, but that's another story). I don't blame the big two and a half for doing this in Miami. If you and two of your buddies decided to go work together somewhere, and you could choose pretty much anywhere you wanted, and you worked winter jobs (let's say you're a team of all-star Santa Claus'), you might pick Miami. I'm just saying, wouldn't this be more fun if it were happening in a city with more basketball history? Maybe a city that hadn't seen a title in a while (or ever)? Somewhere like Philadelphia, or New York or...Cleveland(ouch).

More importantly, I'm not a fan of the way the team is constructed. The big three in Boston fit so well together because they do different things. Pierce needs the ball a lot, he gets to the hoop and to the line. Ray Allen is a spot up shooter who can be happy just hanging out around the three point line and waiting for guys to penetrate and kick. Garnett plays defense and rebounds, he can score inside, but he's not the kind of big man who needs the ball to go through him every possession.

In contrast, Lebron, Wade and Bosh all do basically the same thing. Bosh isn't really a big man, he's just a very tall swing man who likes to play around the perimeter and shoot jumpshots. Lebron and Wade do almost exactly the same thing, except Lebron is a better passer. The problem is, there's only one ball. If you're running the "I dribble dribble dribble and then shoot while you guys watch" offense, it doesn't really matter if one of the watchers is also a superstar, because his watching isn't really helping that much.

And don't say multiple stars makes them much harder to defend. Since none of them are great shooters, it doesn't matter if Lebron draws three defenders and then kicks to Wade, because Wade wants to go right back to the hoop, where Lebron and his three defenders are still standing. And the guy on your team who would guard Lebron isn't the same guy who would guard Wade. The guy who would guard Wade isn't big enough to guard Lebron, and the guy who would guard Lebron isn't quick enough to guard Wade. The result is basically the same thing you had in Cleveland since Lebron got there, or in Miami since Shaq passed 400 pounds and then left. One dribbler, four watchers, lots of jumpshots.

To be fair, there are some benefits. Last year in Cleveland, if Lebron had an off night, if he just didn't have it, they were done unless they were playing a really awful team. Same thing in Miami with Wade. This year, the Heat have both of those guys, and only one of them really needs to have a good game. Either one of those guys can carry the Heat to a win on any given night. They essentially have one more bullet than everyone else, and that's something.

I don't hate the Heat. I don't blame the players for wanting to play together and I don't blame the team for signing the best players they could. I'll root against them because I like it when so-called experts are wrong, but I don't hate the Heat. I'm not fascinated by them either. They're just another team, above average, title contenders, but just another team.

Start Game

You might say that it's ridiculous to start talking about the 2012 election already, but you'd be wrong. First of all, a Republican controlled House working with a slim Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat President is already a perfect recipe for total gridlock. That's even more true now because so many Republicans have some sort of hatred derangement syndrome with this particular President. It's entirely possible that our government will just spend the next two years yelling at each other. The 2012 election may be the next thing that actually happens.

We already know who will be running for the Democrats. It's not possible to be crazy enough to mount a serious primary challenge against a sitting President while also being mainstream and sane enough for people to actually take you seriously. I'm sure we'll see a few people run for a while and take pot shots at the President from the left, but it won't amount to anything. That leaves us with the $64,000 question. Who runs for the Republicans?

Sidenote: Nothing here should be taken as me endorsing anyone. I'm just sorting out who I think will run and who I think will win.

I'm breaking the Republican field into three groups. First, the pretenders. Pretenders are people who I think are more likely than not to run, but who have about as much of a chance at the nomination as I do.

Mike Huckabee
I'm actually starting to wonder if Huckleberry will run again. He seems to really like his gig at Fox. Having said that, he's still probably running. Personally, I've always kind of liked Huckabee. He seems like an honest guy with good intentions. If he would just shut up about Jesus I might even be willing to vote for him.

Unfortunately, last time was really Mike's window. The Christians never liked McCain for some reason and Romney's a Mormon. On top of that, Huckabee was the only real southerner in the race. With the Christians and the South up for grabs, Huckabee still got his ass kicked by McCain. This time around, as you'll see if you keep reading, I think the Christians and the South will have better options. The good news is we can all continue enjoying the Huckleberry Hour every weekend on Fox.

Ron Paul
I like Ron Paul. I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary two years ago when I was still a Republican. Ron Paul might also be the only person who can keep his idiot son in line. Still, you know the deal with Congressman Paul. He'll have a small army of loyal followers, he'll annoy the serious candidates in debates, he'll get Fathead Hannity all riled up (because in Hannity's world, being a real conservative means being eager to make things explode in other countries), he'll raise millions here on the interwebs and he'll finish fifth.

Newt Gingrich
I think some people may consider Newt a real contender, not me. Newt spends way too much time on TV. If you want to make a big comeback in politics, you do it by disappearing for a while and shutting up, not running your mouth on Fox five nights a week. Also, Newt seems to have the need to say something completely crazy every six months or so, that's not really a plus during a campaign. The former Speaker is popular with hardcore conservatives, and I think he can be a kingmaker, but not the king.

Other pretenders receiving votes...
Jeb Bush - He's going to have a hard time convincing voters that he's never met his brother.
Bobby Jindal - Just because the rest of the Republican party thinks he's black doesn't make it so.
Mike Pence - BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave Petraeus - Do I have to remind you people of what happened when Wes Clark tried to run?
Rudy Guiliani - Not even Rudy is crazy enough to run again, right? Right??
Mitch Daniels - See Bush, Jeb.
Jim Demint - double BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Any Republican Member of Congress - I'm like 99.9999% sure you can't win from the Senate or the House this time around. Congress' job approval sits somewhere around 20%. That's the same as the percentage of dentists who don't recommend sugarless gum. How do you get that Washington stink off of you? You don't, especially with the other candidates constantly reminding voters where you work. I've even heard people suggest guys like Marco Rubio and Scott Brown could run. Seriously? Are we even sure Scott Brown isn't a fictional character.

Next, the contenders. Contenders are people who are definitely running unless something crazy happens (crazy being an incredibly relative term in the context of politics). I think everyone below could win under the right circumstances.

Mitt Romney
Cons: Mitt Romney is so boring his secret service code name would be "Ambien". Mitt Romney is so boring he makes John Kerry look like Denis Leary. President Romney's first State of the Union address would be cancelled halfway through. On top of that, I'm not sure Mitt Romney really knows anything. He might be really smart, but sometimes he strikes me as a guy who got into politics because his dad was a politician and because he kinda looks like a politician.

Pros: Romney has a ton of money and lock on the New Hampshire primary. He also has magic underwear. He knows the campaign trail and Republican primary voters know who he is. I don't think he wins the nomination, but he certainly could.

Sarah Palin
Cons: At some point, Palin still has to convince voters that she won't just quit the Presidency when she gets bored with it, like she did with her job as Governor. She'll also have to convince voters that she's not a total moron. On top of that, she may score some points from time to time by badmouthing the media, but nobody ever actually wins a fight with the media, she'll have to make nice eventually.

Pros: The Christians really like Sarah Palin. Seriously, if they had to choose between Palin and Jesus, they'd have to think about it for a minute. On top of that, she's by far the best known person on the possible contenders list. Most importantly, Palin's loyal base of supporters isn't phased by things like facts and reality. I think enough Republicans are smart enough to nominate someone better, but I could easily be wrong about that.

Tim Pawlenty
Pros: As the Governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty walks in the proud footsteps of guys like John Pillsbury (who may or may not have been made of dough), Jesse Ventura and, I believe, the Ultimate Warrior. Pawlenty is relatively well known nationally and very well known in Iowa. Conservatives seem to like him (I saw him on Hannity's show recently and Hannity wasn't yelling at him or anything) and I think moderates will find him, at the very least, tolerable.

Cons: If this primary fight ever came down to Pawlenty vs. Romney, the resulting debate would be so boring it would break television. Not my television, all television. Also, Pawlenty disappeared a little since 2008. That's not entirely bad, but it's not great either. If Pawlenty can win Iowa over Palin and Huckabee (and possibly Gingrich), he could make a serious run at the nomination. In the end, I think he probably winds up as the VP candidate, like he should have last time.

Rick Perry
Pros: The Governor of Texas went from pretender to contender in my book when he seemed oddly reasonable during his recent Daily Show interview. It was jarring. It was like seeing Sarah Palin go on are you smarter than a 5th grader and actually seem smarter than the 5th graders. Perry comes from the biggest Republican state, he can win in the south and, as always, you don't mess with Texas.

Cons: Perry still might be crazy, and he sounds exactly like George W. Bush. If he can prove he's sane and if voters can get past the accent, Perry could be a real dark horse.

Then, there's the favorite, my pick to win the Republican nomination (if you've read my past predictions about, well, anything, you know this means this person will NOT be winning the Republican nomination).

Haley Barbour
Cons: Barbour probably can't win Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada. If someone else can roll all three of those states, he could get buried before he gets started. Also, Barbour is a former lobbyist (uh oh) and a career politician (double uh oh). Luckily, voters are stupid and will most likely ignore the fact that Barbour is exactly the kind of person they claim to hate so much.

Pros: Lots to like about the Governor of Mississippi...
1) He's a great fundraiser
2) If he can beat Rick Perry, he'll dominate the south in the primaries
3) He'll take Republican leaning general election states like Georgia and North Carolina (and possibly even Virginia) off the table.
4) Swing state Governors are important in primaries and the general, and Haley Barbour just helped get shiny new Republican Governors elected in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
5) When I look at all the Republican names I just listed, Haley Barbour is the only one I think could actually win in 2012.

Would I vote for Haley Barbour if he were running against Barack Obama? Probably not, but I'd be willing to listen to him at least, which is more than I can say for most of these other people.

I Was Wrong

Even though I'm super smart and totally awesome, sometimes I'm still wrong. Around this time last year, I said the Washington Wizards would surprise everyone and get to the second round of the playoffs. As you may have heard, later that season, Gilbert Arenas brought a gun to work and the Wizards traded their entire team. They wound up with the first pick in the draft.

Similarly, last spring I picked the Seattle Mariners to win the AL west. I did a few paragraphs for every team, so I didn't expect to be right about everything, but man did I get that one wrong. I stopped watching after a while because I couldn't take it, but it's possible Seattle lost all 162 of their games last year. I think they may have also managed to go a whole season without scoring any runs. Swing and a miss for me (and the Mariners, many many times).

Why bring these things up now? I wanted to have some take on the midterm election results, but with the three cable networks hosting a combined 174 analysts for eight hours each, I really doubt there's an angle they missed. I can't imagine I have anything to say that wasn't shouted over 10 other people on cable TV at some point. So, I'm left searching for something that's specific to me, and that brings me to what I was most recently wrong about. Charlie Crist.

A little over two months ago, I boldly predicted that Charlie Crist would win the Florida Senate race convincingly, and his win would usher in a wave of successful independent candidates. I still stand behind the logic I used to draw that conclusion, which was basically this:
1) Polls consistently show people are angry with both parties.
2) Independent candidates can do well if they already have strong name recognition, which the current Governor of the state certainly does.
3) Crist honestly seemed like the best candidate.
4) I also thought the Democrat would drop out and endorse Crist at some point. Swing and a miss there too.

That was my logic, and I would have looked pretty good if my prediction had panned out. Instead, Crist lost by 20 points to tea party favorite and department store mannequin Marco Rubio. Whoops. I tried to figure out where I went wrong and came up with the following:

First of all, Crist was an awful candidate. I don't know what his deal really is, but it seems clear that Florida voters see him as a slimy politician who would do anything to win and has no loyalties other than to himself. I don't know how Florida voters think this makes him any different from every other politician, but one way or the other, they didn't vote for him.

Secondly, Marco Rubio turned out to be probably the most reasonable of all the tea people. To be fair, it didn't take much. Being the most reasonable tea person is like being the coolest kid at bible camp. Still, Senator Elect Rubio looked like a rocket scientist Tuesday night compared to the likes of Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell, and that was a pretty good reflection of how the whole campaign season looked.

Most importantly, I ignored the fact that this election was happening in Florida. The Florida that gave us George W. Bush because they couldn't figure out how to vote correctly. The Florida that sent Katherine Harris to the House of Representatives...twice. The Florida that has three sports teams based in Tampa Bay even though Tampa Bay isn't an actual city.

Obviously, Florida shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore. I honestly don't know what we're waiting for. More importantly, I'm never making a prediction for a Senate or House race again, because I'm from New York, and all the other states are crazy.

As for the rest of the midterm results, I have one thought for each party. Humble advice for the road forward.

Democrats
Try growing a collective spine. If it doesn't feel good after a few months, you can always go back to your natural state of cowardly compromise. But, just for a little while, why not try deciding on some principles and then not voting for anything that doesn't match up with those principles. The Republicans did that for two years and do you know what happened next? They mopped the floor with you.

This obviously starts with the President, who's been especially timid since Tuesday. I'm never happier with the President then when he's doing his "why are you people so stupid?" tone of voice while calmly explaining why he's right and everyone else is wrong. I want more of that. Republicans are going to call him arrogant anyway, he might as well just come out swinging.

Republicans
You have to do stuff. I know you don't want to, but you're going to have to. The Democrats still control the Senate and the White House. If you want a shot at winning those in 2012, you have to pass some legislation through the House that people like. Then, you can go to the voters and tell them how the big mean Democrats killed all your awesome legislation and if they just hand the rest of the government over to you, they can have their candy.

Also, you have to find a decent candidate for 2012, and I'll get to that next week.

Restoring Sanity

The dynamic Stewart/Colbert duo are holding their rally to restore sanity this weekend. I'm not sure a big crazy rally is the best way to restore sanity. And I'm not sure doing it on a Saturday afternoon is the best way to get ratings. I'm also not sure I'm going. Actually, I'm sure I'm not going. I'm a fan of those guys, but I'm not a "drive seven hours to Washington on a Saturday to be at a rally I could watch on TV" kind of fan, ya know? There are only three things I'd get up at 7AM and drive to D.C. for:
1) Guns n Roses reunion
2) For some reason, they've decided to make me the President
3) Another Guns n Roses reunion

By the way, I think it's worth noting that when we talk about restoring sanity, we're really talking about relative sanity. The sanity of a time when oral sex was an impeachable offense. Not exactly totally sane, but way better than now. I mean, at least they didn't succeed in getting rid of President Clinton. If President Obama was caught with an intern, he'd be out of there faster than Joe Biden could say "oh god! I'm really not up for this! NOOOOOOOOO!".

Anyway, in my mind, there's only one way to restore sanity. Vote. Why? Because the lunatics always vote, in large numbers. I can only think of two ways we could keep the tea people from voting.
1) An all-day Tim McGraw and Toby Keith concert. This sounds like something we could do until you remember that Tim and Toby are on the tea people's side.
2) Shiny objects. This would also work in theory, but there are millions of them. If the rest of us spent next Tuesday distracting the tea people with shiny objects, then nobody would vote. At that point, Congress would have to declare a do-over or something.

I plan on driving almost two hours to vote. I'm not registered to vote yet in my new home state, so I'm driving all the way to southern Connecticut on election day to vote against Linda McMahon. I'm not calling shenanigans on myself for voting in a different state than I just moved to because, as I've previously written, Congress makes the laws for everyone and we all have to deal with their nonsense. I won't vote for Governor or state elections down there, I promise.

Why vote against Linda McMahon? BECAUSE SHE'S THE F*CKING WRESTLING LADY! That's why. I know the tea people are all about new faces and hating career politicians, but there's actually something to be said for having Senators that, ya know, know something about governing and public policy. I'd be the first person to argue that a former CEO could make a good President, Governor or Mayor. Those jobs are also chief executive positions, Senator is a totally different skill set.

So, as much as I'd enjoy tuning into CSPAN one evening next year and seeing Senator McMahon turn on Joe Lieberman by hitting him with a steel chair while Jim Ross declares the day's Senate session a "slobberknocker", I'm voting for the other guy. You can't go from drinking beers with Stone Cold Steve Austin and kicking guys in the groin to the Senate. I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere.

The great thing about election day is it's the one day we all really have an equal say. For months before the election, all the influence sits with the big campaign donors and the media outlets that are in the bag for one side or the other. But on election day, everybody gets one vote, and that's it (unless you live in Chicago). And if 75% of the country is not crazy, and we all vote, then logic dictates we should wind up with a relatively sane government.

But that isn't what happens. Instead, all the crazy people vote and most of the rest of us don't bother, especially when there's no Presidential election. The result? Crazy elections with crazy results. There's no way 50% of all the people in Michele Bachmann's district actually like her, it's impossible, she's certifiable. But the crazies all vote for her, and everyone else stays home. Next thing you know, some guy on MSNBC is telling me she might be the next Speaker of the House (that just happened on my TV, I swear) and I'm trying to find out how much a house in Ontario would cost me.

That's my 2010 midterm voting slogan. "Get off your ass and vote for the least crazy person you can find, because you never know who could be the next Bachmann". It has a nice ring to it.

PS...this is a mostly unrelated side note that doesn't have a whole lot to do with anything, but I need to get this off my chest. I watch about 10 minutes of news in the morning while I'm transitioning from asleep to awake enough to drive to work. I usually flip between Fox and MSNBC. I don't have much to say about the MSNBC show, it's just sort of there, which is really what a morning show should be. I'm not really in the mood for learning at 8AM.

On the other hand, Fox and Friends is absolutely the stupidest show on TV. I've decided it has to be intentional. There's no way three people could actually be that stupid, they would have burned the studio down by now. It's like listening to three 2nd graders complain about their teacher. In fact, I'm pretty sure I heard one of them called the President a doodyhead this morning (I could be wrong, I told you I'm half-awake while I watch). It's infuriating, but I can't look away sometimes. It's just so dumb, like a double rainbow of stupidity.

I still watch Glenn Beck sometimes too. He's so far removed from reality at this point I actually kind of feel bad for him. I guess what I'm saying is, I may have to ask my cable company to block Fox from my TV because I don't have the will power to turn it off myself, but I'm pretty sure it's going to break my brain soon.

Promises, Promises

I've decided to run for Congress. Maybe the House, maybe the Senate. Hell, maybe both. I've been watching election coverage for the last two or three months (it feels like about 13 years) and these people are idiots. I could totally wipe the floor with them, but I'm going to need some campaign promises, so here goes.

First of all, I'll take money from anyone. You hear me? ANYONE! Karl Rove, George Soros, nefarious foreign entities, illegal aliens, space aliens, Kermit the Frog, anyone. And I'll take it whenever. During the campaign, while I'm in office, after I've resigned in shame over a scandal (campaign promise 1B, I promise to resign in shame over a scandal. You'll never see it coming, but it'll be fun and interesting and you'll be glad you voted for me).

By the way, why is it that neither party gives a crap about our government being for sale until they don't like the buyers? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the people we elect could spend more time governing and less time running around begging for donations? Actually, now that I think about the current crop of people we've elected, and the people we're about to elect, it's probably a good idea to have them doing anything but governing. Ignore this paragraph.

I promise to cut taxes and the deficit. How? Through serious, substantive cuts to the federal budget? No, don't be ridiculous. Through the mystical magic of the free market. Here's how it works:
Step 1: Cut taxes.
Step 2: Abracadabra!
Step 3: No more deficits, balanced budget.
It's that simple. What? You don't get it? That's because you're stupid. You need to read a little less about economics and a little more about Ronald Reagan (campaign promise 2B, I promise to call voters stupid, like all the time, at least once a day. That's called being bold).

I promise to find a way to get rid of some of those pesky constitutional amendments. I know the first amendment talks about respecting no establishment of religion and not prohibiting the free exercise of religion, but that was written like 250 years ago or whatever, before we knew what the mooslims were really up to. Obviously, what the founders really meant by freedom of religion was the right to worship jesus however you want. I'll put that in the hopper and we'll start working on language for the new and improved first amendment.

Also, the 8th amendment. No cruel and unusual punishment? That just seems silly now. I bet if we could talk to Thomas Jefferson today he'd say how silly that was. In fact, I bet they were just joking about that. Those founders, always with the funny jokes. What good is punishment if it isn't cruel and unusual? Why even bother?

No changes to the 2nd amendment though. That would be insane. Firearms haven't changed at all since the 18th century. If the 2nd amendment was good enough for muskets, it's certainly good enough for handguns and semi-automatic rifles. And we need our gun rights and our militias, you never know when the British might come looking for another re-match.

I promise to pass a law requiring all TV shows to make at least 52 new episodes every year. No breaks, no re-runs, just pure entertainment. Any show breaking this law will be punished with a mandated guest appearance by one or more of the following awful celebrities:
David Hasselhoff
Urkel
Rosie O'Donnell
Jamie Kennedy
anyone from the Jersey Shore
Gene Simmons
anyone who's ever been on a VH1 reality show
Roseanne
Weird Al Yankovic
Don't think that's a harsh enough punishment? Just think about how quickly a Weird Al episode could murder Glee. Speaking of TV, I promise to get rid of American Idol. I just can't take it anymore.

I promise to end all the crazy weather. Hurricanes, nor'easters, crazy heat, random hail storms, now apparently there's some kind of wind storm heading for the midwest (seriously? a wind storm? when did we move to Mars?) I'm sick of it, aren't you?

Plan A is to hire someone to build us a weather machine. Evil geniuses do it all the time, and with my magically balanced budget, we could afford to hire one. A weather machine is plan A because it's really more of a proactive approach, we wouldn't just be hiding from the weather, we'd be on the offensive against it.

In the absence of an evil genius willing to take on the challenge of plan A, plan B is building a dome over the country. It would be clear, so we could still see the sky, and it would be broken up into little retractable sections, so we could open it up when the weather is nice. And we could collect the water as it rolls off the dome when it rains, so we'd still get water. The dome plan is pretty bullet-proof, but I'd still prefer a weather machine.

I promise to end don't ask don't tell. No jokes here, this is just such a stupid policy, why are we so stupid sometimes? Hey! I promise to start a commission to find out why we're so stupid sometimes. I'd have to find not stupid people to be on the commission though, otherwise I'd just get a stupid answer. Governing is hard.

I'm out of promises for now, but it's starting to sound like I'm going to need some unilateral power to get some of these things done. Sure, I could get 60 Senate votes for a weather machine (provided we had parts of it built in 30 different states), but 60 votes for ending don't ask don't tell? Ridiculous. New plan, I'm running for President. Wait no, the President can't do whatever the hell he wants either. Hmmm...how about Dictator? No, Americans are pretty wary of dictators. King? I'd have to learn how to speak with a British accent, no dice.

I've got it! I'm running for Oprah. She could do all of these things and nobody could stop her (and even if someone could, they wouldn't dare try). I also hear she's leaving her show soon, so we'll need a new Oprah. I think I'd be perfect, and then I could do all this cool stuff I just told you about. Vote for me for new Oprah!...and a better tomorrow.

Tips For New Hockey Fans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reap The Whirlwind

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" Hosea 8:7


If you read this blog enough, you already know that I am, quite possibly, the least religious person in the world. I couldn't believe in god less. I like the bible though. It's well written and contains some of my favorite quotes, including this one from the book of Hosea.

Hosea, by the way, is apparently one of the minor prophets. Tough break there. God talks to you, you're a prophet, seems like a pretty sweet deal. Then, somewhere along the way, you find out you're just a minor prophet. What a slap in the face. Why even bother being a prophet at all? I think the old testament prophets needed a union, so they could collectively bargain for equatable treatment of all prophets.

Anyway, I've been trying to keep up with the midterm elections. It isn't an easy task. Midterms can get pretty boring. First of all, who the hell are these people? Secondly, even when we have a supposedly huge change election, an overwhelming majority of Congress stays the same. For example, 1994 is basically the modern standard for a big change election. 1994 saw a 54 seat swing to the Republican side out of 435 House seats, or about 12%, which means 88% basically stayed the same. In the Senate, the Republicans picked up 8 seats out of 100, I don't really need to do the math for you there.

Boring or not, elections are important, especially Senate elections. The Senate holds the real power when it comes to making our laws. The House passes laws all the time with simple majority votes, but the Senate has all kinds of wacky rules and legislation generally goes there to die. So, if some dumbass state elects some dumbass Senator (I'm looking at you Pennsylvania. Rick Santorum? What were you thinking?) that dumbass is immediately 1% of the major governing body of our country for six long stupid years. Now, imagine what happens if dumbasses all over the country unite to elect a series of dumbass Senators.

In Nevada, the Republicans have nominated Sharron Angle, who, among other things, once suggested that ammunition shortages at sporting goods stores might be evidence that the nation is arming for a revolution against the federal government. Not crazy enough for you? How about this? In discussing her opposition to abortion in the case of rape or incest, Sharron suggested telling the hypothetically impregnated rape victim to turn what was really a lemon of a situation into lemonade.

You might think Angle couldn't possibly win an election, but Ms. Angle is running against Harry Reid, who is as charismatic is he is competent. The real clear politics average currently has Reid ahead of this lunatic by a whopping half a point. If you've ever seen Harry Reid talk, you can understand why I'm not optimistic about him being able to win over voters and take a real lead. If Sharron Angle can manage to avoid committing a felony in the next month and a half, I think she's got a very good shot.

In Kentucky, the Republicans nominated Rand Paul. Rand thinks the President shouldn't have been so hard on BP for filling the Gulf of Mexico with oil. Rand also would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The latest poll in Kentucky has Rand Paul up by 7. Two earlier polls had him up 15. Get ready for Senator Paul (who promises he won't actually try to repeal the Civil Rights Act, seeing as it's already been passed and all. How sporting of him).

Recently, Delaware Republicans nominated Christine O'Donnell. Christine actually seems like a nice person and I think the media has been a little tough on her. First of all, I didn't dabble in witchcraft when I was in high school, but if you had asked 15 year old me if I wanted to go see the satanic altar with the blood on it, I would have said "of course, I'm 15, what about me being 15 would suggest to you that I wouldn't want to see that?".

They're also all over her about her opposition to masturbation. I don't know what to say about that. She was a young Catholic and she was saying what the priests told her to say. I'm less worried about O'Donnell than some of these other people because early polls have her way down and, considering how late her primary was, I'm not sure she has time to recover. However, being that she's wildly unqualified to be a Senator and got nominated over a solid moderate candidate, she's another example of what we're talking about today.

I could on and on like this. Alaska Republicans nominated a guy named Joe Miller instead of re-nominating Republican incumbent, and seemingly non-crazy person, Lisa Murkowski. I don't really know what Joe stands for other than not shaving and not wearing a tie (but if you want to know what Joe stands for, just ask Sarah Palin, because that's who Joe asks when he wants to know what he stands for).

I've already talked about Florida empty vessel Marco Rubio. If Rubio wins it'll be the first time exit polls show a candidate won a Senate seat because of his "great hair" and "winning smile". He and Sarah Palin would make an excellent weekend news team.

New York Republicans nominated some guy named Joe DioGuardi to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand isn't exactly a political dynamo, Republicans could have stolen that seat by nominating a moderate that people have actually heard of instead of some guy who has run for Congress four times and only even managed to get nominated once.

The far right wing of the Republican party and the tea people have sown the wind. This is why I'm not a Republican anymore, the party is now routinely passing on qualified, reasonable people in favor of crazy, unqualified super-duper conservatives. Ideally, we'll watch them reap the whirlwind when they blow a chance to take back Congress from the consistently hapless Democrats. But what happens if all these crazy people ride an anti-incumbent wave to victory on November 2nd? Then, we all have to deal with the whirlwind.

Pessimism

Some people are optimists. They see the glass as half-full. They always look at the bright side. Even more people at least try to be optimists. Not me. No matter how much I like something, I can always see the downside. I'm like the opposite of a motivational speaker. I wonder if there's a market for that. Someone to come in and talk to your employees when they're just a little too happy, a little too satisfied. I could be that guy.

Anyway, I bring this up because one of the best days in America's year is coming up. Football's back! We've been waiting for Sunday since February and I'm tired of spending my Sundays watching stock cars drive around in endless circles. I can't wait. But that's Sunday. Today, I'm using my talent for pessimism to point out all the things I hate about this thing I love.

I hate that football starts on a Thursday. Just like baseball starting at night or the WNBA starting ever, football starting on a Thursday makes no sense. Football is for Sundays and Monday night and that's it. If Pierre Thomas wasn't on my fantasy team, I'd boycott tonight's game altogether. And speaking of tonight's game...

I hate Brett Favre. I just want to run up to him and punch him in the stomach. That goes for Peyton Manning and Tim Tebow too. I wish all three of them would retire and get a TV show together that I could never watch. I'm feeling a cop drama. Manning as the by-the-book Sergeant, Favre as the rule-breaking, bad-boy detective who never retires so eventually someone has to shoot him and Tebow as the cocky rookie. This could work. Speaking of Peyton Manning...

I hate the Colts. I'm not 100% sure why. They're just so smug and well-run and annoying. And then they quit on the perfect season last year (and the football gods punished them thoroughly). Maybe it's Manning's fault, I stopped hating the Packers after Favre left.

I hate the Jets' offense. This pre-dates Mark Sanchez and Rex Ryan, it even goes back to previous offensive coordinators. I feel like the Jets' offense has been terrible my whole life. It's like nobody told them the goal is to go forward. Also, in a more recent development, Braylon Edwards can't catch. Somebody on the Jets' coaching staff should probably try to work on that.

I hate that where I live dictates what NFL games I see. This never bothered me in other sports. I had Yankee games my whole life in New York, and who wants non-Yankee baseball anyway. Non-Yankee baseball is like ordering apple pie, only when your pie comes, instead of apples inside, it's the Kansas City Royals. But the regional market thing doesn't work for football in New York for. I've spent my whole life watching awful Jets games and horrible NFC east football. Do you remember when the Giants played the Cardinals twice a year? Unfortunately, I do.

I hate the whole NFL money situation. The non-guaranteed contracts, the hold-outs, the crappy collective bargaining agreement. First of all, a non-guaranteed contract isn't really a contract, is it? They should call them non-binding resolutions like Congress does. Also, what's with the hold-outs? Darrelle Revis held the entire city of New York and everyone at ESPN hostage for like six weeks because he was only supposed to make 1 million dollars this year. I know he's worth more than that, but is only getting paid 1 million dollars really a good enough reason to just stop going to work? (seriously, is it? Because I'd love to not get up for work tomorrow)

Finally, I hate that no one knows what's going on in the NFL from week to week. Sometime this season, I'll start a running back on my fantasy team that everyone says will have a big week, but he'll wind up with 4 carries for -3 yards. Everybody's superbowl pick will probably go 6-10. I know, that's what we love about it too, unpredictability and all. So, with absolutely no confidence, here are my picks for the season.

NFC PLAYOFFS
1: Dallas
2: Green Bay
3: New Orleans
4: San Francisco
5: Atlanta
6: Philadelphia

New Orleans over Philly
San Francisco over Atlanta
Green Bay over New Orleans (but only if this game happens in Green Bay like I'm predicting)
San Francisco over Dallas (big upset, Dallas chokes away a chance to play a home superbowl, Wade Phillips is fired and possibly executed by Jerry Jones immediately following the game)
Green Bay over San Francisco

Random NFC Thoughts
If I owned a sports team, I'd immediately hire Mike Singletary to coach it. It wouldn't even have to be a football team.
It'll be a big day for Philly fans when Kolb takes them to the playoffs while McNabb watches from home. Unfortunately, Andy Reid will still throw the ball approximately 103% of the time and they'll lose eventually.
No playoffs for the Vikings. This Favre thing has to end sometime, and it'll only end when his team has a bad enough season that no one could possibly want him the next season. Fingers crossed for this year everyone.

AFC PLAYOFFS
1: Indianapolis (Boooooooooooo)
2: Baltimore
3: New England
4: Oakland (you heard me!)
5: New York
6: Houston

New England over Houston
New York over Oakland (blowout, total destruction)
New York over Indy (revenge!)
Baltimore over New England (not revenge!)
Baltimore over New York (The phrase Rex bowl or Ryan bowl will be used around 1 million times)

Superbowl: Green Bay over Baltimore

Random AFC Thoughts
I thought people were crazy picking Baltimore until I actually looked at the AFC. The Jets can't score, the Pats can't defend and the Colts always choke eventually unless Rex Grossman is involved.
Some people like the Bengals, and they could go 11-5. They could also go 5-8 and have the entire team spend the last three weeks of the season in prison. I'm staying away.
I think Chris Johnson has another 2000 yard season in him. Speaking of the Titans, I usually hate guys who get labeled as "guys who just win", but I'm kind of buying it with Vince Young. If one of my AFC picks misses, I think the Titans take their spot.
No Steelers. I won't pick the Roethlisbozo. I hope they go 0-16.

The New Center

I have a theory. Now, I watch Glenn Beck at least a couple of times a week. Glenn has a lot of theories, I think the last one involved Woodrow Wilson secretly traveling back in time to start the slave trade. My theory isn't a Beck-style, category five crazy theory. I'm a bit more of a moderate, and that's sort of my point, this is a theory about moderation.

I've been trying my best to get engaged with the 2010 midterm elections, my efforts are meeting with limited success. The Democrats are undisciplined, somewhat cowardly and really failing to zero in on a message. Ya know, they're acting like Democrats. I can't imagine a way a party could more thoroughly squander a huge majority, but I'm sure the Democrats can.

Meanwhile, the Republican party seems to have been taken over by crazy people. Their nominee in Nevada, Sharron Angle, can generously be described as totally insane. Of course, she still has a decent chance of winning because she's running against Harry Reid's politically dynamic combination of unspeakably boring and unimaginably ineffective. Should be a real barn burner out there.

The Republicans in my current (but, thankfully, soon to be former) state have nominated Linda McMahon. Seriously, the wrestling lady. I swear I'm not joking. But she also still has a decent chance because she's got about a trillion dollars and she's running against a Democrat who kept telling people he served in Vietnam even though he didn't.

I've also noticed the Florida Senate race. Florida has the rare three-way race going. Independent and former Republican Charlie Crist vs. tea party Republican and former hair model Marco Rubio vs. a couple of Democrats who can't even poll at 20% in a pretty 50/50 state. Crist leads the real clear politics average of polls no matter which Democrat you plug in. This brings us to my theory. I think Crist is the leading edge of a big wave of successful independent candidates.

Look at where we are right now. People are rightfully fed up with both parties. The imagineers at Fox News keep telling me the Republican party will win back a majority in the house and maybe the Senate in November. How many times do you think people will go back and forth like this before they realize nothing ever changes? I think Crist wins by double digits in November, partially because he won't be weighed down by the stupidity of either party. That's why I think he should change his campaign slogan to "I'm Charlie Crist, and I don't like either of these guys". I also like that slogan because it's a little punchier than Marco Rubio's "I'm Marco Rubio, and I'll say whatever Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin tell me to say".

In the past, independents struggled because they couldn't raise any real money and they didn't have enough name recognition. Next time you go vote, take a look at the candidates on your ballot after the two major parties. It's a veritable who's who of who the f*ck are these guys. People generally aren't fans of voting for people they've never heard of, or giving them money.

But Sean, you protest, Ross Perot had money and everyone knew who he was, and he still only got just under 19% in the 1992 election. I can't argue with you there. Sure, part of what Perot was known for was his trademark bat-shit insanity, but still, he was well known. So what's different now?

As usual, part of the problem is the internets. An independent candidate doesn't need the party establishment to raise big money anymore. Even major party candidates do a decent amount of fundraising on the internet. I'm not saying an independent can get even with the big parties on money, but I think they can get close enough, if people know who they are. That brings us to culprit number two.

Cable news. People are more well informed about politics now than ever before. Well, maybe I wouldn't say we're well informed, but we're certainly more informed. I live in Connecticut and know who Marco Rubio and Sharron Angle are. Do you think I would have known who they were in 1992? Probably not.

So, here are the factors:
1) People are genuinely fed up with both parties
2) Fundraising is way easier now than it was even 10 years ago
3) Name recognition in politics is almost universal at this point
4) I say an independent is about to destroy both big party candidates in a pretty visible Senate race in Florida

Over the next five/ten years, I think we'll see a wave of moderate, reasonable politicians running for office as independents, and winning. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2020 Senate looked something like 43 Republicans, 41 Democrats and 16 independents. Of course, this means Congress will do even less than it does now. Impossible, you say? That sounds like a challenge.

Further down the road, maybe this even gets us a new third party, which will inevitably become just as corrupt and ineffective as the current two parties. I said I had a theory, I didn't say it was a good thing.

Mosques and Marriage

I haven't been writing a lot lately. It's possible I've just run out of new ways to call people stupid. It's also possible that the summer heat has melted some of the outer parts of my brain and left me less creative. I've decided that the second possibility is more likely. First of all, I'll never run out of ways to call people stupid. Second of all, it's been a little cooler this week and, voila! Here I am.

I've seen two seemingly unrelated stories in the news lately to which I've had, essentially, the same reaction. The first is this thing about the mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site. Before I get into this, here are a couple of disclaimers:

Disclaimer #1: I'm from New York. If you're also from New York (or at least long island), then whatever opinion you have about this, no matter how much I might disagree with it, is perfectly valid in my eyes. On the other hand, if you're not from New York, if you've never called The Only Real City In The World home, then I couldn't possibly be less interested in what you think about this. Be quiet Sarah Palin, worry about your own town's problems (I don't what problems they have in Alaska, bears? too much snow? ice road trucker camera crews eating all the moose jerky?)

Disclaimer #2: We've got some religion involved in this issue, so anyone who talks about it winds up being labeled anti-muslim or pro-muslim. I assure you that I feel the same way about islam that I feel about all other invisible friends and space gods.

Anyway, I agree with what the President said about the ground zero adjacent mosque on Friday. Not only do I agree with what he said, but I love how he said it. He used his condescending, "why are you people so stupid sometimes" tone that is absolutely my favorite thing about him. Of course private citizens have the right to build a mosque on privately owned land. At the same time, other private citizens have the right to argue and protest about what they do and do not want built in their neighborhood.

Now, if I were a guy looking to build a mosque, would I build it two blocks from the World Trade Center? Probably not. This sounds like a poorly thought out plan, right? I mean, did these people honestly think this would go off without a hitch? I don't know if they've noticed, but people in New York are still pretty touchy about the whole 9/11 thing, and even though we know (well, most of us know) terrorist groups don't represent all muslims, building a mosque two blocks from the giant whole in the ground left by muslim terrorists really does strike me as a dumbass idea. If your goal is building a community center focused on fostering interfaith relations and understanding, this really isn't a good start.

I think, if you live in New York, and this thing stirs up old negative feelings and opens up an old wound for you, or maybe pours salt on a wound that hasn't even healed yet, and you feel like it shouldn't happen, that's a perfectly valid concern, and I think you should voice it. Just don't get mad when elected officials don't have your back. They took an oath to protect the Constitution, not our feelings.

If it seems like my personal opinion on this near ground zero mosque thing is a little hard to nail down, that's because it's one of those things I don't really have a strong opinion about. I sort of don't care. I know I'm supposed to, I don't though.

The second story was the overturning of proposition 8 in California, clearing the way for legal same-sex marriage in the state, ya know, at least until the next court rules, and then the next one. This story is different from the first in that there are no valid opinions on the other side. Of course homosexuals have the right to marry each other and it is the job of the courts to protect the rights of minorities from the opinions of the majority. Even the Republicans seem to mostly get it at this point, they've been pretty quiet since this court decision happened.

Still, some people have expressed their usual outrage about the dangerous gays and their fabulous marriages, and that brings me to how these two stories go together in my head. Some people just don't like homosexuals. They say same-sex marriage threatens opposite-sex marriage, but even the lawyers for Prop. 8 couldn't come up with a story for how that might actually work. They claim they're just looking out for children, but when you take an argument like that into a courtroom, judges generally want to see some of that evidence stuff. Tough break. Really, they just don't like homosexuals.

Similarly, some of the people who are arguing against the almost at ground zero mosque just don't like muslims. I've acknowledged that others arguing against the mosque have valid opinions, but some of them just don't like muslims (when I say "some of them", I'm talking about the outsiders from Alaska and Texas and everywhere else other than New York who suddenly give a crap about all the New York elites they usually hate so much).

My point is, if you don't like muslims or homosexuals, just say that. I wouldn't call it a valid opinion, but it's your opinion and you're stuck with it. And, if you're truthful with us about why you're against these things, then we can have an honest debate with your ignorant ass.

PS...this was a pretty heavy topic, so I felt like throwing in some mostly unrelated comic relief at the end. The title for this post reminded me of the theme song for Married With Children. On Thursday, a guy I work with was talking about cool new shoes he wanted to buy and my other co-workers seemed to be split on the idea. I took a look at the shoes he was talking about and, as it turned out, he was getting ready to by the shoes that Al Bundy invented after seeing god wearing them, only without the built in socks. This may not be comic relief for everyone, but if you were a big Married With Children fan, like my dad, you will laugh your ass off if you haven't seen these before. Enjoy http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/

New Toys

The trade deadline is one of the best parts of the baseball season, so much better than the deadlines in the other sports. The combination of the deep minor league systems and the clear distinction between contenders and non-contenders creates plenty of movement and the chance for us to see good teams get some new toys to play with.

In contrast, nothing ever happens at the football deadline. The basketball deadline is OK, but nothing special (plus, the basketball deadline, for the last few years, has been less about teams getting better and more about the endless quest for cap space). And hockey, well, as I've mentioned before, hockey doesn't really appear on my TV anymore.

As a fan, it's always fun to speculate on where different guys might end up, so let's do that.

The Yankees are the best team in baseball, and some people would say that means they don't need anything. Not me. I think the Yanks need a pitcher. I feel like Dan Haren might wind up in New York, but I really don't think he's a good fit. He's a terrible second half pitcher and he'll give up a ton of homers at the stadium. I'd look for the Yankees to go outside the box a little bit. Watch for them to make a run at the Royals, for Joakim Soria or Zack Greinke, or both.

The Mets are a catastrophe. I've watched the Mets quite a bit since the all-star break, they are awful. Unfortunately, the Mets don't really have any prospects that anyone else wants, and they don't really have anywhere to put a new bat. Maybe Brett Myers goes to the Mets, he can start or pitch the 8th inning. That's probably the best they can do. I also hear the Mets have been shopping Jeff Francoeur around. Good luck with that. A power hitter who doesn't get on base and really doesn't hit home runs anymore, where do I sign up?

Sidenote: The Mets really need a new manager. Jerry Manuel is awful, AWFUL! How awful? I saw him bring Oliver Perez into a game yesterday. I rest my case. Hey, they should get Willie Randolph! Oh wait, they already fired him for no good reason. Oh well.

The Red Sox don't really have anywhere to put a new bat or a new pitcher. I'd watch for them to add to their bullpen, if they do anything. What they really need is a doctor, Boston's season has been murdered by injuries. They should trade for House, the entire cast of Scrubs or Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

Tampa needs a right fielder. I've heard reports about them sniffing around Philly's Jayson Werth, but I'm not buying it. I don't see the Phillies quitting on this season, so they'd need something back that can help them right now. From Tampa, that's probably James Shields or Matt Garza, and I don't see Tampa doing that. I'd probably bet on Tampa doing nothing. Too bad they can't trade for a new stadium, the Pirates have one they're barely using.

Speaking of the Phillies, I don't know what's going on there. They seem to need a bat too, but they're another team that doesn't really have anywhere to put one of those, which adds them to the list of teams looking to add a pitcher. I'm guessing Ted Lilly winds up in Philadelphia, they don't need an ace and they can get Lilly pretty cheap. Also, Lilly rhymes with Philly, so there's that.

I'm not sure the Braves need anything, they look really good, and they recently got Jason Heyward back healthy. They're pretty old at the corner infield spots, so maybe they add some insurance there. If Atlanta's really feeling froggy, watch for them to get in on Dan Haren. I wouldn't be shocked if Haren ends up in Atlanta.

The Cardinals got really jumpy around the deadline last year, hell of a lot of good it did them. This year, word is they'll have to trade top pitching prospect Shelby Miller to get anything interesting, and I'm not sure they're willing to do that. When I look at the St. Louis roster, I think they ought to be able to get it done with the guys they already have, and I think they'll come to the same conclusion.

Part of the reason I don't expect anything from St. Louis is I don't expect the Reds to do anything either. However, if the Reds make a big move, I'd expect to see St. Louis get serious again in the Oswalt/Haren discussion. If Oswalt goes anywhere, I'm betting it's St. Louis, but only after a Reds move. Actually, if I had to put money on it, I'd probably bet on Oswalt staying put. He's got a no-trade he needs to waive and a 2012 option he wants picked up, lots of moving parts there, those deals often get left on the table at the deadline.

The White Sox are my guess for the annual terrible deadline deal, overpaying for Livan Hernandez or Zach Duke seems right up Chicago's alley. Meanwhile, I don't see the Twins doing much because, well, they're the Twins. I would have said the same thing about the Tigers, but now Magglio Ordonez is hurt and I expect them to be looking for an outfield bat, maybe Jose Guillen.

I really like the Giants. Buster Posey is better than any hitter they could have traded for. If Pablo Sandoval has a good second half (I think he will) they can probably win the division. I still expect them to pick up an outfield bat. I wonder if they could get Cleveland to trade Shin-soo Choo (or as I call him, the choo choo train, all aboard!).

Don't ask me about the Padres, I still wouldn't be surprised if they finish under .500. Between them and the Mariners, I don't think I should try making picks for either western division next year. I stand by my pre-season assessment of Seattle's roster. What can I say? Baseball's crazy sometimes, and Milton Bradley's crazy all the time.

If I'm the Dodgers, I get some extra bullpen help. George Sherrill has been terrible. Also, Joe Torre has destroyed so many relief pitchers that he should have an arm surgery named after him, so they'll need someone for whenever Jonathan Broxton's shoulder explodes. Either way, unless they get Manny back healthy for the last two months, the Dodgers are heading for third place.

I don't like Colorado's chances. Ubaldo Jimenez doesn't look right anymore, and they can't win without him. They might add an outfield bat, but I bet they stay put.

Texas may be the only AL west team worth talking about, and they already made their move. I may be the last baseball fan in the world to be totally sold on Cliff Lee, but I'm sold now, Cliff Lee is the man. I don't see how the Angels catch Texas. The Angels are interesting because I could see them getting in on Oswalt or Haren, but I could also see them being sellers. Bobby Abreu would make an interesting addition to a lot of teams looking for an outfield bat.

So, to wrap up:
Oswalt - staying in Houston, or maybe going to St. Louis
Haren - Atlanta, or maybe the Yankees
Ted Lilly - Philadelphia
Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman - Boston
Jeff Francoeur - San Diego, serving drinks at a Chili's near the ballpark
Mets - Brett Myers and 81 wins.
Yankees - Zack Greinke and/or Joakim Soria
Padres - made a secret deal with the devil
Dodgers/Rockies/Angels/Brewers/Marlins/Mets/Blue Jays/Cubs - thanks for playing, see you next year.

Two Teams, One Cup

Grab your vuvuzela and let's do this!

During the pre-game, former American star Alexi Lalas picked the Netherlands and the British sounding guy picked Spain. For the tie-breaker, apparently there's an octopus somewhere that also picked Spain. I'm willing to believe that an octopus knows at least as much about soccer as an American, so I have to believe Spain is the favorite. Of course, if I'm rooting for anyone, it's the Dutch. I've liked the Dutch team ever since I saw them in the '94 world cup and decided I liked their generous use of orange in the uniform area.

The ESPN guy called the world cup "the most massive shared human experience there is". I would have gone with breathing.

Something I've noticed throughout the world cup, the players come out onto the field holding the hand of a little kid. Who are these kids? Are they the players' kids? Are they just random South African kids? Did they win a contest? I need to know these things.

Thing to like about soccer #1: No stupid pop stars singing five minute versions of the national anthems. Just an instrumental version played through the stadium PA system.

Thing to like about soccer #2: Awesome Britishy commentary. Right off the bat we get "not quite total football from the Dutch, but it could be title football". Earlier in the tournament I heard one of the commentators refer to the French team as "instantly underwhelming". These guys make American sports announcers sound like juvenile delinquents.

5th minute: A free kick for Spain almost turns into a goal, nice save by the Dutch keeper. I can't decide if soccer goalie is a great job or an awful job. They spend most of the game just sort of standing around, but every five or ten minutes they have to make a diving save in front of a giant net.

8th minute: A Spanish turnover leads to a good chance for the Dutch, but they decided it was too early to score so they just kicked the ball right at the Spanish keeper. The Spanish team seems to be in charge early.

12th minute: Two good chances for the Spanish. First led to a corner, second hit the side of the goal. Somebody should tell the Dutch the game started.

Thing to like about soccer #3: No commercials. But how do soccer fans know what kind of beer they should drink, or what brand of boner pills is best for them?

Thing to like about soccer #4: Cards. For those who are unfamiliar, if you do something especially mean to an opponent in a soccer game, the referee runs up to you and waves a yellow card in your face. If you do something even meaner, like intentionally kick a guy in the face or something, the referee waves a red card in your face and you have to leave. There's really no area of life in which this system wouldn't be both effective and entertaining.

21st minute: More excellent commentary, describing one of the Dutch players as having "great speed, dribbling skills and optimism". It's nice to have a sport in which optimism is a legitimate advantage. The Dutch see the world cup as half-full.

I've decided America should hire only British people to teach English in elementary schools. I'm glad I don't have to watch soccer again until 2014 after this game, but I don't think I can go back to American announcers.

26th minute: A Spanish player executes the 10th blatant dive of the game and wins a free vuvuzela.

27th minute: "chances are whoever wins this game will leave the world cup ranked number one in the world". I should hope so.

29th minute: A Dutch player just delivered what one of the announcers described as "a kung fu kick to the chest". Couldn't have described it better myself. The announcers agree that should have been a red card. I disagree. That was the most exciting thing that happened in the first 30 minutes of this game, the Dutch player should get a prize.

34th minute: Something really strange just happened. The Dutch won a corner kick as a result of the Spanish keeper misplaying a strange bounce. Instead of trying to score, the Dutch just gave the ball back to the Spanish. According to the announcers, it was about sportsmanship. What? These guys need a Herm Edwards pep talk about playing to win the game.

37th minute: One of the Dutch players just whiffed on a pretty good scoring chance. I'm starting to wonder if the Dutch team is high.

42nd minute: One of the Spanish players has been "troubling" the Netherlands with his "positive attitude when he gets on the ball". I'd be more troubled by a negative attitude, that can be a sign of depression.

43rd minute: Dutch player Wesley Sneijder has a pretty heated argument with the referee about the superfluous J in his name.

46th-47th minutes: Nice rally for the Dutch before the half, nothing to show for it though. Off we go to halftime, tied at nil. At least scoreless hockey games usually involved some excellent goal tending. The British guy at halftime seems to agree with my assessment, adding "we haven't seen any real football yet."

Random halftime sidenote: I'm about three 90 degree days away from hatching an evil plan to destroy the sun. I could be a super villain, I just need a mask, a lair and like 50 billion dollars.

46th minute: The Dutch get what the British announcer described as "half a chance". I can't tell if he meant that as an insult or a compliment.

54th minute: I miss the NFL.

57th minute: What percentage of soccer practice time is spent on falling down and acting hurt? Has to be at least 20% right?

62nd minute: Ayan Robben just missed a great breakaway scoring opportunity for the Dutch. That was close. I have no idea if that's how you spell his first name. I'm renaming him Christopher Robben.

69th minute: Really good chance for the Spanish. Loose ball right in front of the goal, just got there a second late and had it deflected over the net.

75th minute: The Dutch are becoming increasingly unhappy with the officiating. Why can't any sport successfully find competent referees? It can't possibly be that difficult.

77th minute: Spain almost had it there, Sergio Ramos had a free shot with a header that went right over the bar. One of the announcers said he had no excuse. I don't know, that fact that he was trying to score a goal with his head seems like a decent excuse. That doesn't look easy.

83rd minute: Christopher Robben almost had another breakaway, two defenders and the Spanish keeper eventually stopped him. One of the announcers said he should have just fallen down and maybe he would have been given a penalty kick. Sigh.

89th minute: I'm not a big fan of soccer's offsides rule. It's like hockey, only instead of a line, they just can't go past the last defender until the ball is played. It creates this floating, slightly arbitrary offsides line. This, of course, leads to lots of controversy and arguing with officials.

End of 2nd half: Still 0-0, we're headed for extra time (that's European for overtime).

If they're still tied after 30 minutes of extra time, they decide the world cup with penalty kicks. I'm not a fan of this in theory, it's like deciding the NBA finals with a slam dunk contest. In practice, however, these two teams look like they could play for five days without scoring, so I guess you have to decide the game somehow. At that point, it's either penalty kicks or a war between the two countries.

95th minute: Great chance for the Spanish, nice play by the Dutch keeper. Decent counter-attack from the Dutch, ultimately didn't go anywhere. Both teams getting a little jumpy.

98th minute: "we're coming to the halfway point of the first half of extra time." Fractions are fun.

99th minute: Another missed opportunity for the Spanish. If this were a hockey game, we would have heard the crowd yelling "shooooooooot".

104th minute: The Spanish are officially knocking on the door at this point. In other news, both of these countries still have royal families. Europe is crazy.

108th minute: Apparently calling the Netherlands "Holland" is politcally incorrect. So, I learned something today.

109th minute: Uh oh. A red card for one of the Dutch players means they have to play the last ten minutes down a man. On top of that, the Spanish get a dangerous free kick from the foul. Unfortunately, they just kicked the ball over everything.

116th minute: GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAL!!!!!!!! Iniesta. 1-0 Spain. Conquered by the Spanish, now the Dutch know how the Incas felt.

The Dutch didn't have much of a chance to make a comeback, being down a man and all. One or two long shots, nothing too serious. Congrats to Spain, tough break for the Dutch. Adios soccer, we'll see you in four years.

Winners And Losers

My Brain: "Hey, we haven't written anything in while and this Lebron thing seems pretty big. You feeling up to it?"
Me: "I don't know, can you think of a good angle to come at it from?"
My Brain: "Hmmm, how about some kind of winners and losers thing?"
Me: "I don't know, that sounds kind of dumb."
My Brain: "Well if you wanted better ideas, you should have drank less in college."
Me: "Fair enough."

Loser: Jim Grey (Gray? Grey? Whatever)
I counted 14 questions before he asked Lebron where he was actually going. Fourteen. FOURTEEN!!!! I know Jim probably didn't get to decide the questions or the order of the questions, but it was live TV. Just ask the man.

Winner: Dwyane Wade
No matter how many titles they win in Miami, he'll always have one more than Lebron, it'll always be his city and we'll always say Lebron never won a title without Wade. Plus, it won't take long for Miami fans to figure out that they still want Wade taking the big shot at the end of the game, because Lebron isn't a closer. Wade gets to play alongside the most talented player in the world and still be the leader of his team. Good stuff.

Loser: The Nets and The Clippers
If you were a crazy Russian billionaire, wouldn't it make more sense for you to pay the KGB to kill the owner of a successful NBA franchise, and then buy that franchise, then it would for you to buy the Nets. Travis Outlaw? Seriously? And the Clippers? They didn't even get a sniff of any of these guys. When ESPN did their little montage of fake pictures of Lebron in different jerseys, they didn't even include the Clippers. What a disaster.

This is one of the unintended consequences of a salary cap. Once a franchise becomes a complete joke, there's almost nothing you can do to fix it, because you can't just overpay for better players they way the Mets did with Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran.

Winner: Kobe Bryant
The 2010-2011 Heat are essentially shaping up to be two superstars, one all-star, maybe one mid-level exception type guy and eight minimum salary stiffs. When the Lakers dismantle them in the finals next June, all the Kobe haters will have to permanently sit down and shut up.

Loser: The Knicks
I know they got Amare Stoudamire, and I actually like him more than I like Chris Bosh. Having said that, the Knicks were the first team to start gutting their roster and clearing cap space for this summer. Everyone knew they were gunning for Lebron. You can't sell me on anything less being anything other than a disappointment. This would be like getting engaged and deciding to save sex for your wedding night. Then, when your wife takes her wedding dress off in the honeymoon sweet, you realize she's actually Amare Stoudamire. Bad times.

More importantly, you can't like this from a basketball standpoint if you're the Knicks. Mike D'Antoni plus younger Amar'e plus Steve Nash never even equaled a finals appearance. Now you're telling me Mike D'Antoni plus older Amar'e with a shaky knee and a bad eye minus Steve Nash is getting you a ring. A ring you'll have to win by going through a Miami team that now has 60% of the eastern conference all-star starting line-up. Good luck with that.

Undecided: Chris Bosh
I'm still on the fence about Bosh. On one hand, he gets to go along for the ride and probably win a couple of titles. On the other hand, he gets to spend his prime being the third best player on his team. I guess if I had to choose, Bosh is a winner, because it's not like he was going anywhere on his own. He needed help, and now he's got it.

Undecided #2: The Bulls
Carlos Boozer isn't exactly Lebron James or Dwyane Wade, but they've got a pretty good young team out there in Chicago. I think they can get to the conference finals against the SuperHeat. They'll be underdogs, but it wouldn't be a shock if they pulled the upset.

Biggest Loser: Cleveland
This one's obvious, but still. What a punch to the gut, and on national TV. The first time the Heat visit Cleveland, I'd like to see the whole home crowd spend the entire game standing with their backs to the court. I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up tomorrow to the news that Cleveland had been completely abandoned.

Biggest Winner: Steven A. Smith
This whole Lebron announcement thing had no suspense for me, you know why? Because sometime last week I heard Steven A. say Lebron, Wade and Bosh were going to Miami, and it was a done deal. When Steven A. talks about basketball, I listen. After he nailed this story, Steven A. could break the story that Shaq and Kobe were reuniting to play together in Norway and I'd believe it.

50,000 Airplanes

I couldn't be less impressed with the Presidential address I watched last night. It was a very informative speech if you happen to have just come out of a 57 day coma. Otherwise, it was ten minutes of whining about whose fault the BP oil spill is followed by a brief discussion of the road forward, which basically amounted to "we're going to be energy independent one day, although I have no earthly idea how".

I'm a fan of the President, I think I've been pretty clear about that. And, to be fair, maybe the President is, once again, being the grown-up in the room. Everyone wants him to do something, everyone wants some knee-jerk reaction. Maybe the subtext last night was something like "we can start arguing about the future of energy again once we get the damn leak stopped". If so, that's a fair point and maybe he's right.

Still, this felt like one of those leadership moments. A time when the President got a good pitch to hit and needed to knock it out of the park. Instead, he let it sail right on by. In his own address last night, the President referenced FDR's address to Congress on May 16, 1940. In the spring of 1940 the Nazis were just steamrolling Europe. Roosevelt knew we needed to get ready for war and set a goal for the production of 50,000 combat planes for the air force in the next year. In the same address, he referenced the current production capacity at the time, about 12,000. As the story goes, we didn't produce 50,000 airplanes, we produced 100,000 airplanes.

I'm the first one to say the President can't really do a whole lot about an oil spill. He's not Aquaman. But leadership on the path forward sort of falls under his job description, especially if he wants to be remembered as a great President, as all Presidents do. No leadership here though. The bold rhetoric of the Obama campaign has given way to timidly measured incrementalism. A logical, but often maddening pragmatism aimed at doing what is possible without alienating anyone. We accept that from a lot of politicians, but this President can do better.

Where's our bold energy goal for the next decade? 1 million solar collectors in the deserts of the southwest by 2020. Is that possible? I have no idea. Do you think FDR knew if 50,000 airplanes was really possible? Do you think Kennedy was sure we could really get to the moon? I think some people still believed the moon was made of cheese in 1960.

Don't like solar power? What about nuclear power? Safe, clean nuclear power would be a nice goal. Don't think nuclear power can ever really be totally safe and totally clean? OK, promise me a Dyson sphere by 2020. I don't care, just say something. We need a tangible energy goal, something for which the nation's best minds and most talented scientists and engineers can shoot.

The people who supported this President are waiting for him to do something real, something big that matches the promise of his campaign (and no, that half-assed health care bill doesn't count). The President spends all of his time trying not to bother the people who already don't like him and never will. Meanwhile, the rest of us wait.

There's another one of those election things coming up in 2012. I won't vote for Sarah Palin or Mitt Romnezxygr (sorry, I can't type Mitt's whole name without falling asleep). But if the Republicans nominate someone interesting, my vote's up for grabs. I'm tired of waiting.