'Learning to Fly' . . . Still

GM,

Watching a wretched Monday Night Football game (which turned out to be incredible after we started this post), the only thing worth mentioning is that Mike Tirico's winter hat has done the impossible--made him look even nerdier. (Here's a shot I just found of Tirico explaining to Jon Gruden how to sexually harass a coworker without losing your job.) It's a good thing the game is boring, though, because two events from this weekend clearly stood out as the most relevant. (My Christmas-Day unwrapping of towels and bedsheets wasn't one of them.)

I wonder what went through Urban Meyer's mind in the 25 hours and 9 minutes between his decision to step down as Florida coach and his decision to stick around after a leave of absence. What is it about having two national championships and living in Gainesville that breeds such indecisiveness?! Meyer's similarities to Florida basketball coach Billy Donovan are great. Both won two titles, of course, but both were also leaving teams that were loaded but would soon be bereft of all their talent. And if you don't think that was at all a factor, well, you're less cynical and jaded than I. But both men thought about it a little while, decided that coaching an average team was still better than almost every other job in the country, and ultimately made the right decision.

Meanwhile, the federal government is having a change of heart before our eyes--through no choice of its own. You may recall its post-9/11 commitment to making air travel safer.

More frustrating? Sure. More invasive? You bet. More bureaucratic? We can only assume. But on the first- or second-most significant Christian and American holiday, were we capable of stopping a bomb-carrying Islamic extremist named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding a Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam? Not even close. And news like this makes that fact even piss poorer:

In November, Abdulmutallab had been placed in a database of more than 500,000 names of people suspected of terrorist ties. But officials say there was not enough information about his terror activity that would have placed him on a watch list that could have kept him from flying.

What could that possibly mean? We knew enough to figure he might be a terrorist, but we didn't know enough to watch out for him at airports?! While that doesn't make sense, here's a suggestion that does: We give a firmer frisk to anyone with any of these in his name.

Remember what people told us after 9/11? "Sometimes you have to trade freedom for safety." We seemed pretty divided on whether or not that was a worth-while trade. What's for damn sure, though, is that we should all be willing to trade political correctness for both.

-JW

JW,

I suppose it's not an accident that the hyperlinked hat with which you illustrated Tirico's was a woman's. For the record, his actual hat wasn't nearly that feminine. And you left off the propeller on top.

With that settled, let's move on to Urban Meyer, a story that resolved too quickly for me to predict its resolution, dammit. Nevertheless, I'm happy to report that I saw Meyer's "return" (Did he even physically leave his office during that retirement?) coming a mile away. As I wrote in a Sunday email, "There is absolutely no need for coaching to be life-threateningly stressful if you've already won two national championships and will never under any circumstances be fired. Just care slightly less."

And speaking of caring less, how about a prediction for the Abdulmutallab story? It disappears. Vanishes. Quicker, even, than the Fort Hood story. The media knows that a continued examination of Abdulmutallab's motives, strategies, and actions can only hurt an administration that prefers to eliminate the word "terrorism" from our vocabulary. Literally. Just like Afghanistan is now Obama's war, Abdulmutallab is Obama's bored, privileged Islamofascist. We need to stop talking about him before the President gets hurt.

-GM

'Tis the Season. What?!

JW,

The NBA season has started. Who knew?! Looking around the league this morning, I was startled by some occurences, reassured by others, and pleased as Punch by yet more. Here's a brief overview.

1) As an entire generation of fans has come to expect, the Eastern Conference stinks. Of its five teams with a winning record, one of them, Miami, is a humble one game over. Of its five (different) teams with a per-game average of more than one hundred points, two, New York and Toronto, are verifiably terrible, and one, Boston, is so old they're still pissed off about Dred Scott. Conversely, the Western Conference has eight teams over .500, nine with a positive point differential (as opposed to the Eastern's pathetic five), and a whopping ten with a PPG of more than one hundred. At the top of the conferences, the Lakers look simply incredible, whereas the Celtics look relieved that yet another jump shot fell. I'll let you guess which playoffs I'm more excited about.

2) At 2-26, the New Jersey Nets have the potential to be the worst team ever assembled. (Hell, they're already the worst; they're just searching for the worst record.) According to this handy ESPN chart, they're tied with the 97-98 Nuggets and a couple of pre-Cuban Mavericks teams for futility through twenty-eight games, and they're behind only the 70-71 Cavs for worst all-time. (No worries, though: the Cavs recovered in 71-72 with an impressive twenty-three wins!) A look at the Nets' starting five just made me go blind temporarily, but I'm pretty sure it was Josh Boone, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Brook Lopez, Devin Harris, and Courtney Lee. Yikes! You know things are bad when an entire fan base is anxiously awaiting the return from injury of Yi Jianlian--a thirty-eight percent shooter last year, by the way. In other news, Nets tickets are still available.

3) Despite Sports Illustrated's August claim that "no one in the West made as many direct hits in bringing in new players as the once-and-still contenders," the San Antonio Spurs may be getting a little too old for this. Sure, they're 15-10 and hanging on to the seventh seed, but their road record is a pitiful 3-6, and they've played fewer road games than any team in the league. Projecting their final record based on their performance thus far puts them at 44-38. Congratulations on missing the playoffs.

4) If we're going on the past few games alone, your 09-10 MVP is Zach Randolph. Since December 18th, he's averaged thirty-three points and nineteen rebounds. The Grizzlies are 3-0 during that stretch. Surely this is not the world.

-GM

GM,

1) Strangely enough, the Eastern and Western Conferences have been trading blows since 2003 when it comes to championships. Still, the generation you spoke of has every right to expect futility from the East. For a significant period of time, the Jason Kidd-led Nets and the Allen Iverson-led 76ers were the class of the conference, and Keith Van Horn contributed on every Atlantic Division team. In 2002-2003, there was only one 50-win team in the East--Detroit--and I do mean 50. The West had six teams with 50-plus wins that year. The next season, the 36-46 Celtics made the playoffs, and I'll pay for your Christmas ham if you can name me a player from that team besides Paul Pierce. (Hint: Antoine Walker was with the Mavericks that year; I checked.) Even when the Pistons and Heat won championships, we knew they were fraudulent, and Boston's 2008 title only came because an alumnus decided it was time to renew the dynasty.

2) What was Jay-Z thinking when he fired Lawrence Frank? I assume he's the key decision maker anyway. After losing Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson to free agency--from a team that stunk with them--the Nets were simply talentless. The fact that Frank had them shooting at the right basket almost every possession should have been enough to secure his job. By the way, I somehow managed to see the '97-'98 Nuggets twice in person! They won one of the games! But even they had players who could start for other teams. These Nets don't.

3) The Spurs' current road mark is no matter for concern. Those fossils could roll their wheelchairs into the playoffs and still annoy the piss out of any team that's too lazy to box out or play defense. Here's how old the Spurs are: Bruce Bowen played 80 games last year and shot 43 percent behind the arch (from that same spot in the corner, no doubt), and I saw him last night hosting NBA Fastbreak on ESPN2. These guys can still produce with one foot in the grave!

4) Congratulations to Memphis for trying so hard. I could see that team making a run with jumpshots and hustle, winning 44 games, and getting swept out of the first round of the playoffs for the fourth time in four franchise playoff appearances. In the pros, great effort doesn't win; stars do. This truism deserves its own post at a later date.

-JW

Brad Bench Brett? Bright, Bold, or Brainless?

GM,

If you watched Sunday night's game between the Panthers and Vikings, you know that Carolina owned the fourth quarter (20-0), that Matt Moore had the best game of his life (299 yards, 3 TDs, no INTs), that Steve Smith can still dominate a game despite his size deficiency (9 rec., 157 yards, TD), and that Adrian Peterson is very containable all of a sudden (12 rushes, 35 yards, TD). If you read anything after the game, you probably know that Brad Childress tried to bench Brett Favre and that Favre refused to leave the game. This didn't surprise me at all until I learned that Childress tried to take out his franchise, future-Hall-of-Fame, most-touchdown-passes-thrown, most-consecutive-games-started, can't-stay-retired-to-save-his-life, legendary, 2009 MVP candidate quarterback in the third quarter--when the Vikings were ahead 7-6!!!

I think we can safely say that Brett Favre enjoys the following:

- Accolades

- Locker-room comradery

- Fan adoration

- Money

- Winning

Those, however, are not why he came back. Brett Favre came back to playing football (drum roll)............... to play football. Not hold a clipboard and mentor the young guy. Not latch on to a team late in the season because he understands its offense. And certainly not to leave meaningful one-point games in the third quarter.

The Vikings had clinched the NFC North an hour earlier when Pittsburgh stunned Green Bay on the game's last play to take the Packers out of contention for the division crown. They no longer had to worry about that. But with New Orleans' loss Thursday, they were one more Saints loss away from getting home-field advantage throughout the playoffs. And if you think the difference between the No. 1 and No. 2 seed is big--and it is--consider that Minnesota is now just one loss away from losing its first-round bye to Philadelphia. In other words, that game was as big as a non-playoff game could get, and Childress wanted to rip the heart from his offense with the results hanging in the balance.

If he had gotten his way, we'd be talking about this much more, and Favre himself would be blaming Childress for a fourth-quarter beatdown. And Coach, Brett Favre's sh** list is not the best place to spend Christmas.

-JW

JW,

Well put, sir! While headlines like this one suggest that Favre is wrongly usurping Childress' authority, thoughtful fans understand that Minnesota would probably be better off if he were. Consider, for example, last night's Adrian Peterson line. Of Peterson's twelve carries, seven occurred on 1st and 10 and went for a total of twenty-five yards. His three receptions, on the other hand, went for seventy-three yards. Every Vikings game includes multiple comments about Peterson's open-field ability, but Childress is apparently going to be damned if he puts it to the test. Peterson is obviously a talented (though mildly overrated) guy. Why waste him on hopeless runs up the middle that my mother-in-law sees coming?

But forget Childress' predictability for a minute. Given that he characterized his in-game conversation with Favre by alluding to a literary technique popularized by James Joyce (not known for coaching), William Faulkner (not known for sober decision-making), and Virginia Woolf (not known for taking defeat reasonably), perhaps there are bigger issues here. How about the fact that a house built on Favre not screwing you will not long endure? The Vikings have proven--repeatedly, inexplicably--that when the game is on the line, a run is not on the menu. Only Indianapolis, New England, and New Orleans have more passing attempts in the red zone this season, and the Colts and Patriots barely dress running backs. If the last few weeks are any indication, Favre will end this season with a crucial interception--we're all waiting for it--and Childress will be sent packing. He'll deserve it, too. As John Travolta once said, he should have f-----g better known better.

-GM

Health Care Reform (My Ass, Still)

JW,

I'm watching a commercial right now for Education Connection, the online university database that matches deadbeats to their future diploma mill and advertises that fact with a po-faced white chick singing atonally. You asked me to talk a little more about tort reform. Here is my argument. The American medical malpractice system is a lottery for the slothful, the ill-bred, and the socially unacceptable. It's bankrupting the country, and it's doing so for the sake of people who can't read. And their lawyers.

Ingrained in the liberal imagination, though, is a different picture. Tiny Tim at the Christmas table, sobbing in his gravy because the doctors amputated the wrong leg. What liberals fail to imagine is the trailer-to-penthouse dream that has the Cletuses of the world praying for bad treatment. (It's either that or go back to college.) A lawyer friend of mine reports being asked to represent "victims" of such abuses as . . .

1) a medical receptionist losing files

2) a doctor refusing to prescribe antibiotics for a cold

3) a wait of more than three hours for a scheduled office visit

. . . and while these anecdotes prove nothing except that white people need to get their act together just as much as black people do, there's plenty of real evidence that the current system is broken.

Consider the following. While Tom Baker--the fellow you mentioned in your previous post--has lots of numbers at his disposal, he neglects to mention that medical liability premiums have gone up an estimated 2,000% since 1975. (My source? The same actuarial firm from which Baker got his numbers!) Furthermore,

"At 12 percent per year, the growth rate in medical malpractice premiums since 1975 is four times the rate of inflation and twice the rate of inflation in the cost of health care. Million-dollar verdicts are now the norm in jury trials: 52% of all awards exceed $1 million, while the average award now weighs in at $4.7 million."

Tackling health care "reform" without addressing the costs that doctors' insurance premiums add to the system is a fool's errand--it's nakedly, pitifully political--and I'm ashamed of the country for even thinking about it.

Convinced?

-GM

GM,

I am convinced. And this issue reminds me of an all-too-similar traveshamockery in this country--the reference check.

According to a Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) survey, 63 percent of employers have refused to provide references for former employees because they feared a lawsuit. See, if Manager A believes that a former employee is dishonest or lazy, he may be able to help Manager B from another company by conveying that belief in the form of a bad reference. These descriptions are so inherently subjective -- and potentially damanging -- that Manager A could be held liable in a civil suit.

To promote the public interest of not hiring horrible people, 32 states have given employers qualitative privilege, which is essentially leeway that helps them avoid civil litigation. This theoretically allows employers to give an opinion about a former employee as long as it's not given with malice or recklessness... and that's where the subjectivity and inconsistency of the courts come in:

1. Berg v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.: William Berg Jr. sued and was awarded $40,600 from his former employer because it forced him to resign amidst an investigation of theft. Let's go over that again. The company believed the guy was stealing, so it told him to quit or be fired, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that action was enough to impair his reputation--and pay for it. This is known as "defamation by conduct."

2. Tacket v. Delco Remy Division of General Motors Corporation: Thomas Tacket sued GM after a coworker painted "Tacket Tacket What a Racket" on the wall at its plant in Anderson, Indiana. He was originally awarded $100,000 for psychological damages because the company failed to remove the defamatory statement. This is known as "defamation by neglect." Fortunately a higher court overturned it on appeal.

3. Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Co. Soc. of U.S.: Four employees were fired for "gross insubordination." Sounds pretty bad, right. Well, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined they were victims of "compelled self publication," meaning that they had to reveal the reason for their termination to potential employers. Then the court determined that the whole "gross insubordination" thing was unsubstantiated and made the company pay up! Nobody from HR or anywhere else ever said a word!!!

Now, here's where the real parellel is between medical malpractice suits and reference defamation suits: the fear far outweighs the actual threat. Yet the fear is legitimate--especially for doctors--because one bad ruling could cripple the whole business. Unfortunately, there is no insurance to cover companies for reference defamation. This is the world we live in.

-JW

Health Care Reform (My Ass)

JW,

I came to a point of resignation about the health care bill some weeks ago. (I'd point you to it, but the hyperlink system can't handle a document that size.) Sadly, the groundswell of conservative and populist opposition that might have toppled it peaked too early and couldn't be sustained. The success of the bill depends upon conservative Democrats, and they seem to feel that they've done enough by shaping it into what it is.

Which is a monstrosity. As MSNBC reported on Friday afternoon (a story-killing maneuver called Taking Out the Trash by political operatives), the bill being considered by both legislative bodies will cause health care spending to "grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing." Their source isn't a Conservative think tank, mind you, but the Department of Health and Human Services. Obama promises to "root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program" to help pay for the new entitlement, but anyone who believes that Congress will allow a cut in services should probably worry about raising the ol' IQ a bit before Obama's death panels get cranking.

Despite all, I might be able to swallow this debacle of a bill as a run-of-the-mill political loss if it weren't for one thing. As Atul Gawande writes in a fascinating article in The New Yorker this week, the bill currently under consideration has a number of pilot programs that very well could provide models for huge savings down the line. The one idea left out? Tort reform.

That's right, America. Go f--k yourselves. Love, Democrats.

-GM

GM,

I once knew a girl, the extent of whose physical beauty was surpassed only by that of her liberal agenda. Tragic really, and she's not even alone in that regard--among women I know! While trying to convince me that we should socialize health care, she told me about a summer in Ireland in which she was given the free care she needed when she got sick. And by "sick," she meant pregnant. And by "care," she meant abortion.

Just kidding.

Let's talk about your last point--tort reform. Former NBA star and New Jersey democratic senator Bill Bradley wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times in late August, suggesting that tort reform should be included in the health care bill as a way to unite Republicans and Democrats on the issue. After all, frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits have terrible effects:

1. Doctors have to pay lawyers to defend them and insurance companies to cover them should they lose. This increases the cost of health care because doctors have to pass the costs along to the customer.

2. The cases themselves are costly to the American taxpayers. Experts must often be brought in and compensated for their time, as must juries and judges, who could probably be presiding over something more important.

3. Rather than pursuing practices for the right reasons (like wanting to fight certain medical conditions or having an interest in a particular field), doctors are now avoiding certain types of practices--even certain states in some instances--because the fear of being sued is so great.

But then there was this response from Tom Baker, a professor at Penn's law school who wrote The Medical Malpractice Myth, a book that claims that medical malpractice claims don't significantly add to the cost of health care. In his Times interview with Anne Underwood, Baker accuses people like you, GM, of trying to obstruct change in the system by using tort reform as a red herring. As a rare request for a two-parter, what is your rebuttal?

-JW

Brian Kelly Leaves Dead-End Job for New Dead-End Job

JW,

Any claim the Big East had to being a serious football conference disappeared yesterday when Cincinnati coach Brian Kelly agreed to leave the undefeated, Sugar Bowl-bound Bearcats for Notre Dame. Forget the fact that Kelly is a member of the Catholic church and that Notre Dame is the premiere Catholic university in America. Forget that the Irish offered him a reported three million a year. Kelly's move is about neither of those things. Deeper than sectarian loyalty, deeper than money is a truth that the Big East should have recognized with the departure of Rich Rodriguez. When it comes to controlling your own football destiny, you're just another Boise State.

Like any truth, this one has consequences. First and foremost, the national perception that the Big East has no destination jobs has been reinforced, perhaps permanently. If your undefeated conference champion isn't invited to play for the national championship--would that ever happen to Florida, Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, or (of course) Notre Dame?--your coaches will always move on. Second, the Sugar Bowl (and by extension the Fiesta, Rose, and Orange Bowls) has been further exposed as a meaningless joke of a game. Rather than coach in only the second BCS bowl in Cincinnati's history, Kelly prefers to spend the next few weeks recruiting. And who can blame him?! The real "prize" of the Sugar Bowl is the money and television exposure that goes equally to winner and loser. Hell, it goes equally to the winner's and loser's conferences. Kelly understands that in ten years' time--in ten months, really--no one will remember who won the 2010 Sugar Bowl. But they'll remember for decades if he takes the Irish to the national championship game. Which he will if he ever goes undefeated there. Bet your life on it.

Nevertheless, we're going to hear some anti-Kelly whining over the next few days. (We're already hearing it from Mardy Gilyard, who clearly fails to recognize the futility of Cincinnati's efforts.) Fans and journalists alike will likely slam Kelly's "opportunism," "greed," and "lack of loyalty." If our readers have been paying attention at all, though, they know exactly where those complaints should be sent. Not to Brian Kelly but to BCS boss Bill Hancock.

-GM

GM,

I only want to know if this is true. Did Kelly really tell the team he was there to stay? If so, did he do so before the Pittsburgh game just to motivate them?! I won't be rooting for Notre Dame anyway, but if we find out that happened, I'll make a special, concentrated effort to root against him. Nick Saban may have lied about staying with the Dolphins, but at least--as far as we know--he didn't use that lie to get the team up for a big game.

I hate many, many things about college football. Bad postseason, bad replay officiating, bad clock management, the Big Ten, and the coaching turnover. I don't necessarily think there's too much turnover, but it's a travesty that Brian Kelly, the guy who made the Cincinnati football program, the guy who players looked up to and wanted to play for and were able to go undefeated for, has ignored an invitation to a high-profile bowl game so that he can recruit for a program worse than his own. The fact that he's willing to leave--that it won't even matter that he doesn't coach in the Sugar Bowl or the practices preceding it--is the biggest incrimination on the sport.

It's possible that an undefeated Notre Dame wouldn't have played in the national championship game this year, but it's not worth thinking about. The program is destined for mediocrity regardless of its coach. Funny you should mention Rich Rodriguez; he's experiencing the same thing at Michigan. Both schools are excellent academic institutions, but the type of student they recruit hardly resembles the type of athlete all coaches want to recruit. There are only so many Tim Tebows, Colt McCoys, Jordan Shipleys, and Toby Gerharts to go around--if you catch my drift. Something tells me Notre Dame Heisman Trophy winner Paul Hornung does.

It's funny that so many coaches would kill to go to historically great programs. Too bad for them five-star 17-year-olds don't share the sentiment.

-JW

White Man's Burden, Black Man's Strategic Positioning

GM,

CNN anchor Lou Dobbs stepped down last month, and he's out to make new friends. The self-proclaimed populist used to be about ridding the nation of illegal immigrants. Now, out of nowhere, he seems pretty focused on letting them know just how much he cares about their incorporation into American society--particularly those of Latin-American heritage. It should be noted, of course, that he may run for a New Jersey State Senate seat or even the presidency as a third-party candidate in 2012. It may be important for him to shake the image of a "racist," the favorite word of the American Left.

Since we're on the subject, I need to ask you what's acceptable to think and say in this country these days. Maybe I should ask a more liberal-minded person. After all, they're the ones who would accuse me of being backwards if I were to break the "rules." Still, I'm hoping you have more insight than I do. Here's the question: Is it considered racist to oppose illegal immigration? Is is considered racist to support the illegality of some types of immigration? Is it considered racist to prefer my own language to others? Is is considered racist to want to limit the number of people who represent a protected class and therefore have an advantage in employment over me?

A Google search of "Lou Dobbs racist" brings fascinating results. Take, for instance, the remarks made by this mastermind. In case you didn't watch the whole video, the creator (well, editor) accuses Lou Dobbs of being racist because he almost used the term "cotton-pickin'." What obviously happened is that Dobbs began to say "cotton-pickin'," an adjective used to replace profanity in the South, in referring to politicians of no particular race or party. He then realized that there were simpletons out there who would assume that, because black slaves often picked cotton in this country, the term was racist. He then resisted. If you ask me, that's going the extra mile to accommodate those who don't deserve accommodation! The editor, whose homepage can be seen here, sees differently: "And some people still say he's not a Racist... LOL." As a lifelong Southerner, I know two people who've claimed to have picked cotton: my dad and his grandfather. It's unpleasant from what I hear.

Sure, Dobbs is a birther. He's from Texas. He might even be a xenophobe as his accusers say. But now he's having to "change his mind" on immigration so the woefully misled won't hate him. A cotton-pickin' shame, if you ask me.

-JW

JW,

Your questions would be sweet if they weren't almost certain to keep you from ever getting a job. Yes! Of course it's racist to oppose illegal immigration. National borders are discriminatory. Of course it's racist to prefer English to other languages. All cultures are morally equal. Of course it's racist to deny historically persecuted groups an advantage in today's marketplace. Your whiteness and that of your fathers must be atoned for.

Joking aside, it is absolutely true that the white male's tightrope walk is getting wobblier. Consider the following truths, internalized during my time at Famous Northern College:

1) To acknowledge, or even to be aware of (see Orwell: doublethink), a non-white person's race is racist, unless you are doing so for the purpose of giving that person positive race-based consideration.

2) To assert the superiority of American or pre-Muslim-invasion European culture is racist, as all cultures are equal. Paradoxically, however, any given white person is morally inferior to any given non-white person.

3) All white misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture. All black misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture. All hispanic misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture.

4) White people have an obligation to help non-white people. However, it is racist when they do so.

Can these "truths" endure the inevitable backlash? With the Lou Dobbses of the world being co-opted (and thus neutered) by the political system, I suspect they can, at least for a few more generations.

And yet here's Pulitzer Prize-winning writer David Mamet suggesting otherwise (and literally talking his way out of the Nobel):

"For just as personal advantage was derived by whites from the defense of slavery and its continuation as Jim Crow and segregation, so too personal advantage, political advantage and indeed expression of deeply held belief may lead nonwhites to defense of positions that, though they may be momentarily acceptable, will eventually be revealed as untenable."

Bold stuff. But we're unlikely to live to see it.

-GM

Bulls--t Championship Series: A Complaint

JW,

The Cowboys Stadium timekeeper had the right idea. Let that last second tick off the clock and watch as the BCS crumbles. It was a hopeful gesture--the kind of heroism that makes legends--and if the replay evidence hadn't incontrovertibly placed one second back on the board, we might be telling our grandchildren about the guy.

As it stands, we're set for another year of crowing from BCS apologists, whose rapture at a "clear" 1 vs. 2 in Pasadena (a bulls--t notion) hinged not just on a very close Texas field goal but on the mere milliseconds longer that Colt McCoy's insane third down pass needed to stay in the air to ensure bedlam. And that's before we get to Nebraska kicker Adi Kunalic's out-of-bounder that set up the game-winning drive in the first place. Even if you accept the premise that the unexplained, uncodified, and likely illegal hierarchy of BCS conferences places undefeated Texas over undefeated Cincinnati, you've got to admit that any system that requires year after year of miracles cannot forever endure.

As for McCoy, has any college athlete since Chris Webber displayed such a stunning lack of clutchness? Moments after watching him scramble to the very brink of losing, Musburger and Herbstreit speculated that McCoy was looking at the playclock rather than the game clock. I say he was having a flashforward to his future as the last man in a lonely NFL Draft green room. Take a look at last night's numbers and tell me if anybody's taking this guy with an early pick. Teams already know about the Heisman curse. The last thing they need is the I-Didn't-Deserve-the-Heisman curse.

And yet it will be McCoy rather than Tony Pike (whose fourth quarter performance Saturday defined clutchness) who advances, an injustice whose reversal would still leave out TCU and Boise State, teams for whom no amount of excellence, no matter how sustained, will ever be sufficient under the current rules. Like the annual season-ending injury for Greg Oden, the annual BCS debacle manages somehow to fulfill our worst expectations while still surprising us. I thought Auburn's 2004 screwing was the worst that could ever occur in a major sport. Now I know that 2004 was just a warm-up.

-GM

GM,

In 1997, the following was a novel concept--one met with great resistance.

"Let's match the two best teams against each other regardless of what conference they're in."

College football isn't run by normal, functioning people like you and me; it's run by unimaginative, unreasonable, traditionalist buffoons whose response to playoff talk is typically something as compelling as, "It just wouldn't work." A month ago, an SEC president looked me in the eye and said the SEC and Big Ten were "head and shoulders" above the rest of the football conferences. Not only do we allow these people to make decisions about college football; we allow them to breathe our air, eat our food, make way more money than we'll ever make, and decide what's in the best interest of America's youth!

Somehow, they were persuaded to go along with an idea called the Bowl Championship Series. Brilliantly, an actual committee was created to use already-existent bowls, already-existent polls, and already-existent computer formulas to select two teams to play in an actual national championship game. Well, sort of. The AP poll's voters could crown any national champion they wanted, but that could never be an issue, right? With the exception of this obvious mistake, this is the idea third graders would have come up with, and you wouldn't have to pay them to operate as an entire organization. If you were to ask someone what they did for a living, you might be astonished if they responded like this:

"I do a job anyone could do for a company no one wants, all the while blocking the progress of the entire industry."

If you meet that person, though, you've just met the most honest member of the BCS committee.

-JW

An Inconsistent 'Truth'

JW,

By far the most significant underreported story of the year is the leaked email exchange between scientists at Britain's East Anglia University. News of the leak broke in late November to about as much fanfare as my sock selection, and though the Internet has aided in the story's longevity, it's perfectly conceivable that most people aren't aware of it.

Nevertheless, this is big news. Here is The Wall Street Journal:

In [the leaked emails], scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Unified view. Common cause. Hide the decline. It's not Conservative obstructionism or pigheadedness. It's liberals describing their motives and actions in their own words, and it's almost comically grotesque. After all, we're only two days away from the famed Copenhagen U.N. Climate Change Conference, and Barack Obama has already made a provisional pledge regarding the United States' cooperation. Congress is considering nation-altering measures even as we write, and the "fact" of man-made climate change is now so ingrained in the American consciousness that a scandal ten times this size could hardly shake it.

But consider what we can say with certainty:

1. Liberals are far more likely than Conservatives to use words like "profit" and "corporation" pejoratively;

2. Solutions to global warming are anchored to rationing methods that will make profit far more difficult and increase government control over business;

3. Academics who depart from global warming orthodoxy are routinely disciplined or denigrated (here's a particularly funny example);

4. All of our global warming information comes from scientists, and whatever peer-review mechanisms they have can clearly be perverted.

What we can't know for certain is whether or not the entire global warming concept is a minor hiccup in the Earth's history hijacked for partisan and ideological reasons. But we now know that it's not impossible. And that's news.

-GM

GM,

The scientific community's semi-collaborated position on global warming reminds me of why we now have a Democratic president--a very liberal one at that. African-Americans, feminists, immigrants, Jews, college kids, people with white guilt, and actual liberals got together and said, "We may not all know what we want--or even agree about what we want, but we sure as hell don't want another Republican president."

In this case, it was a bunch of scientists who think they know what's best for the planet electing to get their story straight, whether they have matching data or not, for the greater good--as they see it. I suppose this is why conservatives reject utilitarianism. Lying is almost universally regarded as wrong, but if you really, really believe that conservative Americans are destroying our planet, I suppose a few white lies could only help matters. And to clarify, even lying about what you believe should be considered wrong.

This brings us to NBA Commissioner David Stern , who recently said he believes a woman will be playing in the NBA within the next 10 years. If I had my way--and if Stern were to make the best business decision--there wouldn't be a woman playing in the WNBA in 10 years! Stern knows without question that this could never happen. His statements actually prove the opposite of his conclusion:

"If you look at world records, let's say in track and field, you'll see how the women have moved up to what would have been records several decades ago for men," said Stern. "And you watch [the WNBA] and you see the shooting percentages, the passing and the like."

Need I point out the utter lack of logic? "Women may now be as good at basketball as men used to be!" Sure, Commish, but what does that have to do with their ability to compete now? Stern knows a woman will never play in the league unless the liberals really get their way and the legal concept of BFOQ (bona fide occupational quality, meaning in this case that you have to be good at basketball to avoid being discriminated against in the hiring process) loses adherence. He knows what we know, but he also knows that he'll be better off if even one more person watches a WNBA game now--even to make sure women wouldn't stand a chance in the Association. I, for one, won't give him the satisfaction.

-JW

Tiger Woods, We're Pretty Sure Your Wife Beats You

GM,

Kim Miller's 15 minutes of fame were as much about her as the Pistons' 2004 championship was about Darko Milicic. The nation was watching as Miller, on behalf of the Florida Highway Patrol, said in a press conference that Tiger Woods would be charged with careless driving and nothing else. Her follow-up rant about the dangers of careless driving was humorous, and it grieves me that I can't find it online. But check out this bit of breaking news--in the form of a quote from tigerwoods.com.

"I have let my family down, and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart."

Whoah! I wasn't personally ready to believe that no alcohol, affairs, or domestic disputes were involved in recent events, but many of Tiger's fans still were. Yet he led his statement with the above sentence. Now, anyone who believed he just happened to wreck his car twice at 2 in the morning can no longer do so. After several days of absolutely nothing, he's given us too much! I don't think it's an accident either.

I know you don't like Tiger, GM, and I can understand how he bothers you as a golfer. I can understand, too, how his attitude toward his adoring fans and putts that lip out could use some improvement. But the guy just admitted that he's made some mistakes in his personal life, and if you're Tiger Woods, "some" isn't nearly as many as you could make. I'm not saying we should congratulate the man, but he has surprised me by doing something that few athletes would do. That is, of course, unless there's more dirt under the rug that he knows will soon come out. Thoughts?

-JW

JW,

Who says I don't like Tiger Woods? Sure, he's joyless, robotic, pouty, uncharismatic, and famous largely for being "black," but that doesn't mean I don't like the guy. If I disliked him, I'd be jumping in the air in celebration of today's news that Tiger is planning to pay his wife to stay married to him ($5 million in cash and a generous revision of the pre-nup at last count). Instead, I'm doing quiet fist pumps at home while toasting Elin with Swedish vodka. Reports of my hatred have been greatly exaggerated.

As, it seems, have reports of Tiger's squareness. A 2002 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons lamented the fact that Tiger was once seen playing craps at a measly $25 a toss. We now know that he was probably being felated under the table by two cocktail waitresses. Throw in the fact that Phil and Amy Mickelson are notorious swingers, according to rumor, and we may have to rethink the entire golf world. (What's next? Fred Funk whacks 200-yard drive? John Daly makes charitable contribution?)

As to the Woods story, it's fairly obvious what happened if you're willing to put two and two together. Elin found out about Tiger's affairs, she beat the crap out of him, and he staged a car wreck to explain his injuries. The fact that the wreck was low-speed is evidence that Tiger's a p---y. The fact that Elin used a golf club to pry Tiger from the car is evidence that God likes irony. Frankly, I couldn't be happier!

So what's next for Woods? I predict a furious display of golfing at the Masters that falls just short of a fifth green jacket. Tiger still loses far more often than he wins, thank goodness, and a big win in Augusta would be far too predictable (and predicted) to actually happen. The only question is whether or not Elin will console him on the 18th green. I say yes. Clearly, the price is right.

-GM

Like Its Cheese, Swiss Logic Has Holes

JW,

If the sip of water you needed to stay alive would guarantee the extinction of, say, polar bears, would you take it? For the neo-pagan Left, the answer is no. For everyone else, it's yes. The instinct for self-preservation overrides the political symbolism.

As it happens, that very question was asked in Switzerland over the weekend, though in different terms. Presented with a referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets (the onion-shaped spires that dominate Muslim architecture and look vaguely like tits), 57% of voters agreed to do so. Muslims, the thinking seems to have gone, tend to avoid assimilation, preach our destruction on the street corner, and blow us up with bombs. Something should probably be done about them.

The problem, of course, is that taking away a mere architectural flourish is the equivalent not of drinking that water but of using it to wash your hands. The bear dies all the same--in this case, the Arab still rises against you--but you did nothing about your thirst. What the authors of the referendum (the nationalist Swiss People's Party) seem not to have understood is that the law's offending element is not the ban on spires but the assertion of non-Muslim will--the expression of a desire not to be converted. As every thinking person in the world now knows, the Swiss have brought jihad upon themselves. What they haven't done is halt in any meaningful way the spread of Islam by the sword.

Yet outrage--predictable, liberal, and disturbingly white--has followed the vote all the same. The referendum "ensured international embarrassment for Switzerland" according to the Times of London, as well as "a backlash in the Muslim world." The move "is a blow to freedom of religion" according to the Vatican (!), and it increases "the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures." Even apologists for the ban, such as Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, admit that it is "not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies." She's right, of course. How could it be?

Ironically, the fact that Muslim policy toward America seems to be unapologetic jihad may work in our favor, at least during my lifetime and yours. In Europe, the course has been set differently, and the spectre of Islamic government and Sharia law creeps ever forward. We already know that childless Europe will have to import their next generation. It seems that they've chosen poorly.

-GM

GM,

Speaking of Europeans, bad behavior, and decisions that make no sense, FIFA (translated to mean "International Soccer Association") is considering what punishment to give Thierry Henry, the French striker who committed an uncalled handball against Ireland. Soccer, if any part of you still wants to win Americans over, your effort is either pathetic or halfhearted.

GM, you recently impressed me when you said you've managed to avoid even seeing a replay of the obvious infraction. I, however, haven't been so lucky and am all too familiar with the history. It goes like this.

1. Player commits infraction; infraction not called; other team gets screwed.

2. Player admits to committing infraction but adds: "I'm not the ref. I played it; the refs allowed it. That's a question you should ask them."

3. Embarrassed by his team's unfair victory, player agrees with sore losers about how to resolve the miscarriage of justice.

4. Governing body discusses how to punish player.

How does that sit with you? Soccer fans, go back and read items 1-4 and apply it to Michael Jordan's push-off on Bryon Russell, or Reggie Bush's pushing Matt Leinart into the end zone against Notre Dame, or this strike call. In your world, the refs miss a call, and the player who benefited is to blame?! What was Henry supposed to do? Pick the ball up and hand it to the official?! Soccer fans act like he cheated in the same way that Sammy Sosa corked his bat! And if the act had been premeditated, isn't that an indictment of how bad the sport's officials must be? He actually took time to think that he could get away with blatantly touching the ball!

If the riots, oddball fans, and inescapable boringness of soccer hadn't already lost me, this horrible gesture would. Who's left to punish FIFA?

-JW