Corpocracy

Did I watch Conan O'Brien's last Tonight Show? Hell yeah I did! It was fantastic. Neil Young was awesome (Neil was awesome on the Haiti concert too. Is that the first time him and Dave Matthews played together? Did Neil travel back in time at some point so he could have a second career as Dave Matthews?). Plus, and I swear this is true, I had never heard Free Bird before, at least not that I can remember. I'd heard of it, but I'd never actually heard the song. Will Ferrell, by the way, has gotten to the point where I can't tell if he's kidding anymore, but he gets an A+ for breaking out the cowbell (I feel like we needed a little more of it). If I was Fox, I'd give Conan a blank check to go on my network at 11:30 starting in September and do whatever the hell he wants. If they do it right, he'll crush Leno and Letterman. I almost wrote a whole thing about it, but then I thought, who would I be convincing? Is there anyone who would say "no Sean, I don't think Conan has a big future in TV, Fox should just stick with Seinfeld reruns at night"? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous, Glenn Beck, my favorite TV crazy person, is at it again. Last week Glenn did a whole special about how communism is bad. Thanks Glenn, that's super helpful. I hadn't noticed all the communist countries failing miserably and disappearing, except Cuba and North Korea, who can't feed themselves. At one point, Glenn teased the next segment as the story of the holocaust that history forgot. That sounded unlikely right off the bat, but I stuck around to find out. Turned out he was talking about Stalin. Ummm, what? Can I get a show of hands from anyone who didn't know Stalin killed millions of people? Seriously, wow, kudos to Glenn for pointing out that Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Che Guevara were all bad guys (I know, people wear Che t-shirts, it's not because they support all the things he did, it's because they're stupid. Glenn, of all people, should understand what that's like).

With whom did Glenn think he was arguing? Does he think people were watching and thinking "sorry dude, I totally disagree with you about that Stalin guy, he seems super cool"? I know we have some communists in America (and that's the good part about America, you get to believe whatever you want, and tell people about it too, and I'm not allowed to send you to jail, or even punch you), but they're not the crazy killing people communists, they're more the sharing the wealth types. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks all America needs is Stalin. And I know Glenn would say that the wealth sharing communists always eventually turn into the killing communists. And if there was a huge wealth sharing communist movement in America and Glenn was talking about them and warning them that it's easy to get carried away, I wouldn't make fun of him.

Unfortunately, Glenn was talking about this because he continues to insist that President Obama and the majority of Congress are, in reality, communists/marxists/socialists/facists; maybe polygamists. OK, I made up that last one. But Goldmember Beck isn't the only one saying this, lots of "conservatives" are. I'm not sure why.

The bank bailout? As far as I can tell, here are the terms we gave the banks in return for giving them an oil tanker full of unmarked bills:
1) You have to pay us back, well most of it, or some, unless you really don't want to. We might suggest a new tax/fee to get the money back, but it'll never pass Congress because, um, you own Congress.
2) You have to come to Washington every once in a while and re-apologize for lighting the economy on fire and using the flames to light your cigars. You have to try and sound really sorry.
3) We're going to use you as a political pinata for a while.
4) There are some things we're requiring you to do with the money to help re-build the economy you broke, and no more huge bonuses (or, if you prefer, boni)...just kidding. Do whatever the hell you want.

Now, you could argue, since we don't produce actual things in this country anymore, that the banks are as much a means of production as anything. I'll buy that, especially because, the way our economy is set up, it's basically impossible to start any kind of business without a loan. But if you'd say that the government controls the banks now, you have a very odd definition of control. It reminds me of that joke about who aliens would think was in charge if they came down and saw us following dogs around and picking up their poop. The banks destroy the economy, the government gives them billions of dollars and they get super rich again while the rest of our economy still sucks. It's hard to argue a lot of government control in that equation.

Health Care?
I don't know what a final health care bill is going to look like, or if we'll get one at all. I do know that Republicans have been crying about a "government take over of health care". What? What part of forcing citizens to by insurance from private insurance companies at basically the same rates we're paying now constitutes a takeover? Believe me, I've argued that a government takeover of health care might be necessary, the way the government controls the military or police, because the private sector isn't doing the job on health care. If the government was taking over health care, I'd be among the first people to say so.

What about the auto industry bailouts?
Well, we're getting warmer at least. I'm not wild about taxpayers owning the majority of GM, especially since by taxpayers I mean the federal government. Because if I owned any piece of GM, we wouldn't be getting rid of the Saturn brand. Soon I'll have to find somewhere else to take my car for service, I don't like change. On the other hand, there are a couple of realities here worth noting. First, if we're going to bailout huge banks, why not also save some jobs for blue collar auto workers. If you'd rather have done neither, that's an excellent point and I couldn't agree more, but that ship had already sailed on the President when he took office. Second, if it takes a little government input to get GM to stop making cars that get 3 miles per gallon and explode whenever they turn left, then so be it.

On a somewhat related topic, last week, the Supreme Court ruled that any limit on corporate contributions for buying campaign ads in unconstitutional. They can't just give a candidate a sack of money, but they can buy all the ads they want (which is what campaigns use money for anyway). Great job Supreme Court, well done. For years, Congress has tried to find sneaky little ways to be corporate whores, now they can do it right out in the open, I'm so thrilled (by the way, Republicans seem to be supporting this decision, I'm not sure why they think it'll be better for them, Democrats can be whores too).

This doesn't really look like socialism or communism to me. It's actually sort of the opposite of socialism, the corporations are running the government. What do you call that? Congressman Clyburn, specifically in reference to the Supreme Court ruling, called it a corpocracy. I knew there was a reason I always liked him. I especially like corpocracy because, if you look at it really quickly, it kind of looks like crapocracy. Is this better than communism or socialism? Probably not. But it isn't socialism.

Mixed Bag

First of all, if anyone reading this hasn't donated to the Haitian relief effort yet, what exactly are you waiting for? Here are some links (I know some people get nervous about credit cards over the internet, I can tell you I've never had any security problems with the red cross website):
American Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/
Yele Haiti: http://www.yele.org/
MSNBC has a good bunch of links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34835478/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/
OK, on to less important things...

I've noticed that many of my favorite ESPN.com writers sometimes do mailbags, where they answer questions sent by readers. Just now, I'm figuring out exactly why. Sometimes you sit down to write, but you don't really have anything to write about. Bummer. That's where the mailbag comes in. Unfortunately, I don't know if I have any readers, and I know they don't e-mail me. I'll have to improvise. So, here are some fake e-mails from made up readers.

Q: "I just watched Mark McGwire admit to Bob Costas that he used steroids. This is a two part question. First, is this even remotely news? Second, did you see him crying? Did you know that Mark McGwire was secretly a ten year old girl this whole time?" - Zack, Bayside High School
A: Excellent question! Of course it's news. And someone should tip Bob Costas off to some other breaking news stories. I have it on good authority that the sun might rise again tomorrow. Also, I took the ice out of my freezer a couple of hours ago, and it melted, all I have left is a bunch of water. I feel like I need to give a tearful interview about it. Seriously, I've never been less surprised by anything. I'll be more surprised tomorrow when I wake up and find that there isn't a monkey in my bathroom than I was when I found out Mark McGwire used steroids. As for the crying, if you're going to come out and try to cover your old lies with barely more believable lies, at least keep your dignity.

Q: "I read your NBA preview blog. Were you high when you predicted that the Washington Wizards would make the playoffs and Gilbert Arenas would have a great year and not do anything crazy? Did you have a serious concussion or some other kind of traumatic brain injury?" - Balki, Chicago/Mypos
A: No. Sadly, my brain was fully functional when I wrote that. I'm 30 years old and it's possible I've never been more wrong about anything in my life. I'll give Gilbert this, not many people could pull off doing something that hits a 10 on the what the f*ck meter and still have it not be that surprising. Well done sir.

Q: "I have a friend who innocently brought four guns to work, only because he didn't want to leave them home with the kids. Now, out of nowhere, he's suspended from work and being charged with a felony. I guess I should also mention that my friend has a reputation for being somewhat unstable, and any rational person would be terrified by the idea of him having even one gun. But come on, shouldn't everyone just give my friend a break?" - Philbert, Washington D.C.
A: Sorry "Philbert", I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think your "friend" is a bad guy. In fact, if I knew who you were talking about, I'd probably say he's someone I've always liked and rooted for. But, if I brought a gun to my office, I'd probably lose my job immediately, and nobody would give a crap. So I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for your buddy.

Q: "What do you think about Charles Woodson winning Defensive Player of the Year?" - Jean Luc, um...Space, in the future
A: Let me just say this. If you offered the Packers Darrelle Revis straight up for Charles Woodson, even if Woodson was still young, they'd take that deal so fast you'd see a big Packer shaped dust cloud in the room where they were standing. Not only should Darrelle Revis have been the Defensive Player of the Year, he may also be some kind of Roman god. Did the Romans have a god of pass coverage? I feel like they should have.

Q: "Did you think it was weird for the NFL to have the Packers-Cardinals playoff game officiated by a group of blind chimps?" - A.C., Bayside High School
A: Lots of questions from Bayside today, they're huge fans of mine. I actually got 200-300 almost identical e-mails. I know it seemed that way, but I went back and watched the game footage in slow motion. The game was officiated by actual human referees, who, at times, appeared to have the full power of sight. Is it possible the NFL adapted my Umpire Idol idea and used it? I don't think so, my idea involved making sure the winners knew the rules of the sport. It's more likely a bunch of drunk tailgaters from the parking lot beat up the actual refs and took their uniforms. The NFL should beef up ref security for this weekend. By the way, what does the A.C. stand for?

Q: "What do you think of this whole Leno-Conan thing?" - Tyler, Paper Street
A: First, I think what I've always thought. Jay Leno sucks and I don't understand why anyone watches his show. I don't understand why NBC can't just let Jay and his 95 and over demographic go to ABC. Carson was the best, Conan is awesome. Leno is like the lettuce in my patented BLMB(bacon, lettuce and more bacon) sandwich. I'd say I'm boycotting Leno from now on, but I literally couldn't watch him less than I already do.

Q: "You picked the Cowboys and Chargers in the superbowl. You still feeling pretty good about that?" - Ron, San Diego
A: I feel awesome about my picks right about now. The Cowboys destroyed the Eagles and the Jets have their fans set up perfectly for the annual huge disappointment that no one saw coming. Plus, I think this is the week the football gods punish the Colts for quitting, which means if the Chargers can get by the Jets, they get a home game next week against Jets lite. Of course, if you read back to my Wizards/Arenas pick, you'll see that Jets and Vikings fans should be very happy I'm picking against them this week.

Q: "Speaking of your NBA preview, when you tagged the Nets as the most boring team in the NBA, did you fail to account for how interesting a team can be when it's that bad, or are you not the kind of person who finds 10 car pile-ups interesting?"- Hawkeye, fictional Korea
A: First of all, how did you know someone else also asked a question about my NBA preview? That's a little creepy. The answer is a little bit of both. I'm not surprised at how bad the Nets are. I also wrote that if you combined the rosters of the Knicks and the Nets, you still wouldn't have a playoff team. Even with the Knicks overachieving, the Nets are still bad enough to make that true. If you added all of the Nets to the Knicks, it might actually make the Knicks worse. At the same time, I probably underestimated how interesting this colossal failure would be. I have to admit to turning to Nets games a few times this year, just to see how bad it really is. I have yet to be disappointed.

Q: "Do you regret dumping the Islanders for the Edmonton Oilers now that the Oilers might be the worst team in hockey and the Islanders are not actually terrible and kind of fun to watch?" - ALF, Melmac
A: Not at all. This was a long term decision and I'm very happy with it. Have I seen an Oilers game all year? Absolutely not. Is it possible I may never see an Oilers game? Entirely possible, since only the Cup finals get televised on a real TV network. Are the Islanders' throwback blue uniforms on Saturday nights incredibly awesome? You're damn right they are. Having said all that, Edmonton is still the best hockey city I could find and I'm still moving there if I ever get rich and decide to move out of the U.S., so I'm fine with my choice.

Q: "Any thoughts on Pete Carroll going to Seattle?" - Al, Chicago
A: This is really a two part question. First, how do I feel about him leaving USC? I don't know yet. I get the sense USC football may get some nice NCAA sanctions for Valentine's Day. If that's the case, Pete's sudden exit gets a solid 8.5 on the douchebag meter. Otherwise, he had to leave sometime. Second, how do I feel about Seattle being the NFL job he finally took? That's the part I don't get, and the part that makes me think he had other reasons for leaving. Maybe he just got tired of waiting for Norv Turner to finally get himself run out of San Diego. Maybe he just really likes rain. I don't know, but the Seahawks were awful this year, and possibly the first team to quit on the season. Why is Pete Carroll taking over a team that quit before the Redskins? Before the Raiders? Before the Rams? I honestly can't figure it out.

Q: "Did you see the Sarah Palin-Glenn Beck interview?" - Jim, Scranton
A: I wouldn't have missed it for the world. It was like the black hole at the center of the galaxy of stupidity. You know what's really starting to strike me about Sarah Palin? Her incredibly high ratio of condescension to knowledge. I don't know if we've ever seen anyone who knows so little acting as if she knows so much. Everything she says, even the total nonsense, has this air of absolute certainty about it. It's really something. I still say she should have her own TV network. I also still say I'm moving to Finland if she gets elected President (which I also still say is impossible unless her campaign strategy includes some sort of military coup involving the Alaska National Guard).

Q: "Can you believe someone other than Mr. T is playing B.A. Baracus in the new A-Team movie?" - Danny, San Francisco
A: I absolutely cannot believe that. "Mr. T is dead" is the only acceptable excuse for that, and Mr. T is clearly not dead, I just saw him in a commercial. I don't know a whole lot about this Rampage Jackson dude, but I pity the fool who takes Mr. T's role.

Q: "I'm getting excited to watch the Olympics in February and I'm wondering if you can point me toward some of the best competitions to see?" - Mike, Long Island
A: This is obviously a trick question, no one is excited to watch the Olympics.

Q: "Everyone knows you don't care about soccer, and you're right not to, soccer sucks. But are you going to try to get interested in the World Cup?" - Rose, Miami
A: I think I might. Originally, I had decided to double boycott the World Cup on account of it being soccer and the Irish team not even being involved. Recently, I'm having a change of heart. I remember that I always enjoy the World Cup, even if I go back to making fun of soccer as soon as it's over. It's the best possible soccer you can see. Since the Irish are out, I'm rooting for England. I know Ireland and England haven't always gotten along but, as always, I'm a puzzle.