Not quite so random thoughts

I think naming a bridge after Chuck Norris would be a good idea. As this website shows, he's more than just an actor.

I'm not surprised more Americans can name the Seven Dwarfs than can name Supreme Court justices (although I think answering Dopey should count for a Dwarf and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). After all, we've allowed a very small group of politically connected lawyers take on an inordinate amount of power without any way to get rid of them. So, knowing their names is about as worthwhile as knowing the Seven Dwarfs.

There's an old saying about never betting more than you can afford to lose. So, how big do you think the junk was on this Latvian in order for him to cut off part of it?

I don't know how I could have ever thought Al Gore's environmental crusade may have been political opportunism rather than altruism. What's next? Staunch environmentalists like the Kennedys opposed to a major wind project because it might get in the way of their yachting? Or a major political figure admonishing SUV drivers, and then leaving in an SUV. (And no I don't find driving one that uses 85% ethanol E85 to be a good excuse because it's hard to find and studies have found it burns as much fossil fuel to produce as it replaces.)

Some naked news. A Swedish woman caused a stir when she laid out topless on an Albanian beach. What I find interesting is that an Army patrol was sent to check it out. I'm sure little effort was made to communicate with her because then she might have put her top back on.

I'm sure there are better ways to stop the Girls Gone Wild bus.

When I first heard this story, it just said a DUI instructor at the police academy was busted for driving drunk. Then I read that she had no pants on. However, I find the fact that she was in this state with two dogs the most disturbing. I'm actually quite glad the arresting officer didn't ask what the dogs were for.

I heard on the radio that adult film star Darien Vain is performing at Solid Platinum which means double cover charge. Why do they charge more for porn stars? Does anyone get their DVDs to watch dancing?

Hey, Iran just sentenced a woman to death by stoning for the crime of adultery. The good news is that these things have theoretically become more rare. Except Atefeh Rajabi, but she wasn't stoned. She was hung, and may have had more than one episode of premarital sex which certainly outweighs the fact that she was a mentally incompetent 16 year old girl (I must say I'm a little concerned that Amnesty's issue was with her age and not her "crime"). Of course, it was the stupid girl's fault. If she had just claimed she was raped, she probably would have gotten off with 100 lashes. On the other hand claiming homosexuality would have been a problem. Iran has a habit of hanging them too. Fortunately, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likes to write long, pointless letters and has a PHD which is apparently important in some way that I don't particularly see. Unless it's because as an engineer he knows how much weight a rope can support without breaking.

Yet, a Nobel Peace Prize winner wants to kill George W. Bush. Not Ahmadeinejad. Not Saddam Hussein. Not Kim Jong-Il. Not President al-Bashir of Sudan. George W. Bush (I must stress the W because I assuming she's not in the mood to kill his father). You know, I never liked Bill Clinton for political reasons, but it never occurred to me to find virtue in his foreign political enemy, Slobodan Milosevic, just to make Clinton look bad.

Now for the really important news. Two weeks until the UK/UL football game. I know it's just another bad day for UK football fans, but at least you're undefeated right now. Only a few days after that is the first game to open the NFL season. The NFL has become so big that the Emmys were moved so they wouldn't conflict with the NFL regular season. It's football, then everything else.

Ruining Monday Night Football

I hate sportswriters. Actually, it’s mainly the columnists that I hate. Oh, there are some good ones – Chuck Culpepper and Mitch Albom come to mind. Most suck. A really bad trend of recent years has been columnists trying to sound "street" which means they write like a rap song - short, choppy sentences and lots of slang. Many of the ones that don't write "street" are old and a bit senile. Half of them seem to be boosters on the local team payroll, while the other half seem to believe nothing good should be written about the local team. Their sanctimonious behavior tends to get nauseating. Every columnist at some point has done the obligatory "People pay too much attention to sports which aren’t really that important" column without recognizing the fact that they wouldn’t have a job if it weren’t for people who care too much about sports.

What I really hate is the whining. Rick Bozich of the Louisville Courier used to complain every year in one of his columns because UL was forced to play bowl games in Memphis or Mobile. Let’s see. To go those bowl games, I had to use vacation time, get a hotel room, pay for gas to get there, buy my own meals and purchase a ticket to get in. His employer picked up his expenses while paying him to watch a football game that probably included a free buffet for reporters. What an ass. It was the same way with the Super Bowl in Jacksonville a couple of years back. One columnist for ESPN.com constantly declared it would be a disaster. Why? Because Jacksonville is a relatively small city (for a Super Bowl) which would lead to traffic problems. How horrible. I’m sure the millions of people at home were devastated at the thought that the 70 some thousand people who were actually going to the game might be inconvenienced. It was like the Atlanta Olympics. In order to make a profit, the games were held at large venues so more paying customers could go in. Sportswriter whined constantly about the crowds and congestion. The idea seemed to be the Little People should stay home and just read about the Olympics. Well, F U, buddy. Someone needs to tell these jerk-offs that major sporting events are not put on strictly for them.

Then, there are ethical issues. I’ve seen these guys intentionally try to stir up crap with coaches or teams that their paper cover, and by doing so, they become part of the story. Jay Marriotti picking fights with half of the Chicago sports scene certainly comes to mind. Yet, these guys are still allowed to cover the team. One of the worst cases was somewhat local. Pat Forde was investigating UL athletics during the Crum years, and he decided to phone a NCAA tipline with info he couldn’t verify. The Courier suspended him for six months, but he was still allowed to cover UL sports when he came back.

Now, my Monday Night Football will have a columnist in the booth. I was originally happy that ESPN didn't bring the whole worthless Sunday Night Football team over for MNF (just the worthless Joe Theismann). Even worse, they didn't bring in a decent columnist. They brought in Tony Kornheiser. What? Did they get a package deal for Pardon The Interruption and decided to save money? I think PTI is a crap show. Usually, he and Wilbon agree and just shout back and forth to make it seem they are having an argument. When they don't agree, arguing points becomes restating your original point, just louder. I actually used to listen to his radio show when it was on locally. I stopped because he did a monologue on how he would be willing to vote for Bill Bradley because he used to be a basketball player, and basketball players were used to working together. How stupid is that? I don't care who he wants to vote for (if I cared about political leanings in entertainment, I would have very little to watch), but don't give me some stupid, lame-ass excuse like that. Tony, you work for the Washington Post, not the Washington Times. Saying you'd vote for the liberal candidate is okay. Working together? Mobsters work together. Would he vote for John Gotti, Jr.? Stupid, pointless drivel.

Actually, my main opposition is that he's unnecessary. I don't know anyone who watches a sporting event just to listen to the announcers. They could tune in, but you're not going to get them long term. I've never understood why ABC, and now ESPN, feels the need to put three people in the booth. The best MNF team was when they just had Al Michaels and John Madden. Stick with two. One play-by-play and one color analyst. It doesn't get cluttered with too much talking. Just call the game. Unfortunately, the three man team seems to be a sacred because of the original MNF team of Howard Cosell, Don Meredith and Frank Gifford. I'm sorry. I never thought much of Cosell. He seemed to be using the broadcast to show how smart he is, but for some reason, people liked him (or at least ratings were good, but my belief is that it was because most of it was pre-cable). ESPN seems to be hoping Kornholer is more Cosell than Dennis Miller who is the other booth analyst who didn't have a playing or broadcast background. Actually, I liked Miller fine, but he never meshed well with Michaels or Fouts. Given time, it might have worked out.

As I sit here watching the first MNF (preseason version) on ESPN, I have a bad feeling about this Kornheiser experiment. I noticed that the next day the print media was overwhelmingly positive about the whole thing. For obvious reasons. They want to be next. Kornheiser could have spent the whole time loudly passing gas, and those morons would have declared it innovative. Actually, it might have been more entertaining. You see, I'm not real sure what he is supposed to be bringing to the broadcast. Supposedly humor and an outside perspective, but I don't see him enhancing anything. Early in the show, I was thinking Kornheiser was going to be Sam Bowie doing UK basketball games. He wasn't saying much or adding anything to the conversation. Unfortunately, I was wrong. He began to say things that added bad things to the conversation. Most of his jokes were forced, and few were remotely funny. In fact, Theismann was funnier which isn't good at all. When Kornheiser did ask a detailed question, it sounded like he had written it down during the week and was waiting for a good time to ask it. Then he had to beat the "Duante Culpepper or Brad Johnson" argument to death. It was like he was verbally writing a column. There's no time for that during a football game. Actually, he tried to argue everything. Well, not actually argue. Theismann made the statement that an Oakland assistant who had been out of coaching for several years was in a better position to return than Joe Gibbs because he had spent part of that time as a college football coach (still in the game) while Gibbs was totally focused on NASCAR. Made sense to me and had nothing to do with who is a better coach, but Kornheiser couldn't figure it out. Even worse, he didn't ask follow-up questions. He just kept asking (in a louder voice a la PTI) if Theismann really meant it until Mike Tirico explained it for about the fourth time. Is he a complete idiot? I don't want to listen to long arguments while watching a football game.

He wasn't just clueless about the game that one time. Shouldn't this schmuck know quite a bit about football. It was pretty bad that Theisman had to continually explain football to him like he was talking to a retarded child. It was really bad that some of the stuff Kornheiser was saying was so ignorant that Theisman sounded like a genius.

There was one area that he did fine which was when he was answering an email. Of course, he probably had them for several days in which to formulate a response. That is why I think this whole thing will flop. Doing color on a game means coming up with commentary on the spot. Sportswriters are used to putting something on paper and tweaking it over time. He doesn't do his TV show live, so they know what they'll be talking about well ahead of time. In fact, that's one thing I hated about the show was them trying to act spontaneous when you know it's been thought out (whether it's been thought out well is debatable). Even his radio show was about sports stories from the day, not something happening live. So, even the phone calls were about issues he had already researched. If ESPN wants to put Kornheiser in some role with MNF, put him in the studio and have a segment where he answers the emails. Unfortunately, I'll probably have to do MNF like I did the Sunday night game the past several years - watch it without volume.

Who Gets To Define Offensive?

Our intrepid correspondent is writing from the wilds of the Missouri bootheel. I was reading a column by Mark Steyn, and he made a very good point about the Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitism. Apparently, Gibson's diarrhea of the mouth anti-Semitism is somehow more egregious to many people than say a Muslim-American practicing his anti-Semitism by shooting several Jews in Seattle. Now, is Mel an anti-Semite as so many have said or was he just drunk as some of his defenders say? I wouldn't be surprised either way. You sometimes can't tell, but I do know one thing. Mouthing off is not near as bad as shooting someone.

Of course, whether someone being offended gets media play depends too often on who is offending and who is offended. The Mohammad cartoons were big news, and newspapers in this country were more than willing to kowtow to offended Muslims by not showing the pictures. Here’s a thought. How are readers supposed to know if the Muslim rioting over the cartoons was unreasonable if they never actually see the offending cartoons? Actually, I think we all know the real reason why papers like the NY Times didn’t want to show the cartoons. They didn’t want the Religion of Peace to firebomb their office. It’s a Hell of a lot easier to offend non-Muslim religions because they have a tendency to not do such things. There’s a play out there that depicts Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals which I find much more offensive than a couple of cartoons of Mohammad. Yet, while there have been some protests and hollow threats, I don’t see the Christian community rioting over this.

With this fresh on my mind, I come across something that makes me think any entertainment figure that jumps on Gibson is a hypocrite because they haven’t said a thing about Madonna. Gibson made some rather unpleasant comments about Jews while drunk. Madonna has deliberately taken the Crucifixion, one of the holiest acts in Christianity, and appears to be mocking it in a concert. I freely admit I have a long way to go to be a good Christian, but how on earth can someone look at what she’s doing and not think it’s highly offensive to Christians. Yet, the only complaints are from religious leaders. No one from entertainment or politics is demanding that Madonna apologize. Why not?

I really shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve never thought that much of Madonna’s singing ability or her choice of songs. One of my fraternity brothers was a huge fan, but he could never get me to understand what the fuss was about. I always figured his little head was the part that liked her. Oddly enough, Shane was a big Madonna fan, but he thought the song by the Divinyls, “I Touch Myself”, was disgusting. I guess a female singing about having a little afternoon delight by herself is bad, but doing it onstage with a Puerto Rican flag is okay. Suffice to say, I never “got” why Madonna was so popular. When I’d hear her songs, the best ones were listenable, but that’s not really an endorsement. For the most part it’s been pedestrian dance music. As with most straight white males (Jesco White being the exception), I can’t dance so I certainly have a bias against dance music.

However, the career of Madonna has been as much promoting herself through outrageous behavior as it has been about her music. Usually when you have to do that, your music doesn’t stand on its own. For example, Marilyn Manson was nothing when it was fronted by a somewhat normal but unattractive man named Brian Warner (unattractive isn’t a problem for male rock singers, just boy band members). Get a makeover to look like an idiot and tell everyone you’re satanic and suddenly you have a following. It doesn’t matter that your music is still crap.

I just think that what we accept and reject as religiously offensive is skewed quite a bit. However, I must admit that Madonna's antics did lead to a great quote from the Daily Gut website - "It's funny that Madonna's greatest achievement in her life will be the unification of religious leaders under one belief - that Madonna sucks."