That's Not Right #1- Go Out and Play

This is something that I expect will become a irregularly regular part of this blog. It will consist of things not worthy of a full posting, but particularly annoying to me none the less. Todays annoyance is:  
"Go Out and Play" This commercial has been running on the radio the last couple of weeks on the local radio stations and has finally gotten to me. Using a professional announcer to reminisce with us through those "four words" that we have been hearing since we were kids, and to a soothing musical background, we are lovingly allowed to picture in our minds the fields of our youth, sports, apple pie, and a simpler time in our lives. This gentle soul then explains to us that we can return to that feeling by gambling at a Native American Casino in Michigan?

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong! Forget all of the junk about gambling addiction, throwing away the rent money on a slot machine, or the grocery money at the blackjack table. Anyone who feels the need to do so has a personal problem and needs to deal with it. What I object to is the not too subtle play on the memories of my youth (which are now ruined by the way) and the assumption that I am so stupid that I would feel that hanging around inside a windowless casino while losing my last buck would bring them back. Nice try, but your blatant attempt to play on my emotions has gotten an emotional reaction. I will now go across a national border to Canada to throw away my money before I will give it to you.

Ohio State is #1

Well it's official, Ohio State is #1. I'm not talking about the BCS rankings, though OSU should certainly be congratulated about that, even this early in the process. No, I am talking about the numbers being released for the size of enrollment at universities, and OSU came in at the top of the heap. Associated Press just released the numbers, and Ohio State has 52,568 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. The University of Florida at Gainesville was second, with 51,876; and Arizona State University at Tempe was third, with 51,481. Being the top school in enrollment is a laudable accomplishment. Much like the days when Ohio claimed to be the state fair with the largest attendance however, I wonder how much meaning it really has. I will tell you two things that do strike me about the release of these numbers though:

1. Providing education on this grand scale does not appear to allow OSU to provide a volume discount or achieve any efficiencies of scale. Normally, one would expect that the larger the group served, or the more something is being done, the less expensive it would become to produce the item or provide the service. Evidently education does not fall under that standard business model. Of course I'm sure that such things as tenure for professors, sabbaticals, countless teaching assistants, and constant new building projects have nothing to do with this. Neither does appear to affect the university's ability to suckle at the teat of state and federal grants and funding, and to ask for more every year both from government and in the form of tuition from its students.
2. I saw nothing in the press release about how OSU fares in it's graduation rates, either in comparative percentage or in simple raw number comparisons. Perhaps it's enough that we manage to pack students into the campus, and concerning ourselves as to whether these students graduate with a degree is too much to ask.

Don't get me wrong, I am not unhappy that so many people have decided that Ohio State University is the best place in the country to pursue their education. I lived near the university for years, and even had a son who attended OSU; though he did not finish his education there, citing "getting lost in the crowd" as one of the reasons. I can't help but wonder what these numbers really mean in the end however. Does being the biggest school mean being the best? 

 

More Questions

I recently received some additional questions by email that I felt were worth sharing with you, along with a few additional that I have come up with myself since the last posting of this type. I hope that they tickle you the same way that they do me:

• Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
• Why do they use sterilized needles for death by lethal injection?
• Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
• Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
• When you're are getting your oil changed, what are they changing it into?
• Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?
• Why do people give you a "thumbs up" as congratulations, when in fact it was the signal for death in the Roman arena?
• Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
• If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
• Why is it that no matter what color bubble bath you use that the bubbles are always white?
• Why do people keep running over a string a dozen times with their vacuum cleaner, then reach down, pick it up, examine it, and put it down to give the vacuum one more chance?
• Why is it that no plastic bag will open from the end on your first try?
• Why is Upper Sandusky, OH south of Sandusky, OH? (This one actually has an answer, check it out.)
• In winter why do we try to keep the house as warm as it was in summer, when we complained about the heat?
• How come you never hear father-in-law jokes?
• How did 80% of the people considered poor in the US manage to afford at least one color television?
• Why do people insist that you smell something that they just discovered smells really bad?
• If there is no such thing as a stupid questions, what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart right before they ask them?

Remember, answers to any and all of these can be posted as comments. Inquiring minds would like to know.

Stun Guns

The Toledo Blade today published an editorial on the use of stun guns "Stun guns a crutch for cops". http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071014/OPINION02/710140301

While I am sure that the full editorial will be available in a day or two, I would like to share my thoughts on the subject with you today. (I know that this contradicts my earlier posting today, but I have always been a study in contradictions.)  

I have to take exception with this Blade editorial for the conclusion that is drawn and the way that it is reached. While the writer makes on valid point at the beginning saying, "The stun gun can be a useful tool for police to subdue and individual who is dangerously out of control without resorting to standard firearms or risking injury in a fight." They then goes on to destroy their own logic and credibility in the ensuing editorial, especially when concluding, "In the old days, police used hand to hand physical force and billy clubs to bring criminal suspects under control. They need to be firmly reminded that they should still use such means before resorting to a stun gun."  

Quite frankly it is difficult to see how the conclusion can be logically drawn from the premise. Additionally one has to wonder whether such a conclusion should be drawn. While it's true that there have been accidents with the use of stun guns, and that instances of abuse of this technology could also be conceded, I fail to see how going back to billy clubs and fists will resolve this.

• Can the writer seriously believe that fewer incidents will occur if we return to using fists or billy clubs on suspected criminals?
• Can the writer believe that using fists or billy clubs will produce fewer or less serious injuries?
• Can the writer believe that the reputation of the police departments will be enhanced by descriptions or pictures of subduing a suspect through the use of either fists or billy clubs?
• If the Blade writer's conclusion is to be taken, and that primitive technology is to be the answer, perhaps the use of brass knuckles, chains, or even fist-sized rocks might also be of benefit as tools of law enforcement.
• Does the Blade subscribe to going back to those 'bad old days' as an answer, or are they perhaps simply looking for pictures of the bruised bodies of arrested criminals to dress up a story?

Stun gun technology was developed as a safe alternative to physically beating a suspect, and in part because of videos from the past showing police beating suspects with fists and billy clubs flashing across our television screens and pictures splashed across our newspapers. It is an effective method, but like any method that involves the use of force, it carries some risks. Subduing suspects during an arrest is always going to be an difficult issue to deal with. We who have not attempted to do it have no idea how difficult it can be for those who have to deal with situations that can change in an instant. No matter how much training we provide police officers, decisions on the use of any force will come into question in these highly charged and potentially dangerous situations. We have mechanisms to evaluate the use of force in the process of arrest, and we need to trust these before returning to "Flinstone" technology to subdue criminals.

 

Humbled

OK, I tried. In a vain attempt to elevate my own status as a blogger to that of some of the people that I admire, I attempted to post something of value every day for a 7 day period. While I did in fact post something each of those days, I will in no way equate them to the level of postings which I regularly see on some of the other blogs that I enjoy reading. 

For any of you who have ever attempted such a thing let me tell you, it is way too much work. Keep in mind that I say this realizing that the posts that I put up are mostly opinion (that's the most polite expression that I can find for what comes out of my mind and into my keyboard), and not the reporting of fact which requires a great deal more effort and research than I am probably capable of.

Anyway, it has been 14 posts in as many days this month, and I need to slow down for a bit. I am therefore announcing for the record that having been sufficiently humbled, I am going to go back to my pitiful efforts a couple times a week (give or take a bit). It is all that I can do to come up with something of relative intelligence, and put it forward in a comparatively literate fashion under these time constraints. 

Some day, when (OK, if) I grow up, I may again aspire to reach these lofty peaks. Meanwhile, all will have to content themselves (or more likely rejoice) in the fact that my efforts will be a bit more sporadic. 

 By the way, for those of you who know me and hold some vague hope of me reaching some higher level of maturity any time soon, you should be forewarned that my goal in life has always been to go "from immaturity to senility without noticing the transition". At my current age and given most of my current behavior, I can't help but believe that I am close to achieving that goal.

The Golden Years

For those of you who do not know, I am both a father and a grandfather (and a proud one). It is therefore no surprise to find out that I am no longer a young man. (Hell, I have reached the point where the BMV has made me change the color of hair on my driver's license from blonde to gray.) The world tells me that I am now entering my "Golden Years". What a joke! Entering this period of life is a lot like entering a convenience store, while still in your car. Here's what my golden years mean to me:


- I can no longer put off admitting the fact that I will be retiring far too soon for the amount of money that I have saved for this purpose. I am therefore terrified at the prospect of resting from labors that are getting harder to perform every year.  

- Maintaining my health in order to perform these labors is becoming a more expensive proposition every day. I am not making choices between health care and food yet, but it takes a full-time job to pay the medical profession enough to enable me to work a full-time job.

- Exercise is no longer something that I do to attempt to look good to members of the opposite sex (not that it ever worked anyway), but something I do to keep from falling into further disrepair. My body now has more creaks and groans than a stairway in the before version of a "This Old House" project.

- Eating is no longer a behavior that I look forward to with any real enjoyment or without consideration as to the quality or quantity of what is consumed. Instead it is something that I do with trepidation; fearing that something that I eat might not be healthy enough, that it might not be prepared in the healthful way, or that I might eat too much of it. I know that anything that might be tasty, fun, or bad for me will have an immediate impact on both my health and my weight. (Hell, I can gain weight and cholesterol by even looking at a slice of cheesecake. Fortunately I like to think of myself of living proof of an expanding economy.)

- Any esteem that I am held in at work is as much about my age as my ability these days. I may get called 'sir' from time to time, but not because of any respect that I might be held in. Instead it would more likely only be because my co-workers are younger than my children.

- Not being currently part of a "couple", I am also faced with the prospect of attempting to create a social life without even the limited benefits of my youth. (I would have added "and good looks", but there is no point in lying. After all, my pictures on the blog page.) For those of you who are not in the same boat, let me tell you that this may be the scariest thing of all. I won't bore you with the sad details of my pitiful life (Can you hear the violins playing?), but let me say that whether I have little blue pills handy is the least of my concerns.

In the end, the only thing that comes to mind are the words of an old country song: "My head hurts, my feet stink, and I don't love Jesus". I don't remember any of the rest of the song, but I think that you're getting the message. If these are the Golden Years, then I think that I probably got gypped. 

These years could more appropriately be titled the "Oh Shit Years". If I am aging like fine wine, then somebody is letting some air through the cork, and there's the smell of vinegar in the air. Don't get me wrong, this beats the hell out of taking a dirt nap; but I can't say that I would recommend it to anyone I know. The only real positive that I can think of is a bit of wisdom that I came up with some time back: "The only advantages that I may have in an argument are the assumptions of a diminished capacity and memory loss."

Hey wait a minute! Maybe it's just me. Perhaps in my special case, it's Fool's Gold instead of the real thing. (Yes, that could be interpreted in a couple of ways, and probably should be.) Yep, that would explain it.

Wine (Red)

This is the second of two postings that I have done on wine and is covers what is usually the most misunderstood of wines. There is so much more to red wine than Cabernet, and very few understand that. I will attempt to uncover the various varieties as best I can, but I may be a bit less forthcoming in some areas. It's not that I don't want to provide good information, but I don't want to deal with all of you competing for the wines that I like and driving the prices up. 

A little bit different from the way that I handled the whites, I will cover these from the mildest to the boldest. 

Merlot - this is a wine that has fallen on unfortunate times in my opinion, though its popularity is very high. Often used to make Cabernet more drinkable, it has become a pretty generic red for the most part, in order to suit US tastes. Once produced on a level to rival Cabernet, with some very complex flavors, most of the varieties are now "mostly harmless" (those of you who have read Douglas Adams will understand the reference). There are still some good ones out there if you want to spend the time and effort. Look to the Russian River Valley and some of the Washington state wineries.  

Syrah - this is a mild and very fruity wine that is is gaining in popularity. Berry flavors tend to dominate on this wine without any acid or oak. You will see this listed as Shiraz in the Australian wines. (There was an argument between the French and Australians on the name, so the Australians just started calling it something else.) It is often used for blending to make Cabernet drinkable more quickly as well, but is a great wine in its own right. Australia does a great job with this, and California and Oregon are beginning to do equally well in the US.  

Pinot Noir - this is another of the berry wines and also a lot of fun. Blackberry and raspberry come through, with sometimes a hint of oak. This wine can be a real treat, with the best coming from the Carneros and Russian River regions of California, but the Oregon coast is the best in my mind. Definitely worth the effort, and the more you spend, the more complex and better the wine will be.  

Zinfandel - this is not White Zinfandel, for those who missed my white wine posting. It is however, one of the greatest of the reds, and mostly ignored. Topping out the berry wines, this one can also have hints of chocolate, coffee, or even black pepper. Extremely complex, without the Cabernet bitterness and oak, it is one of my favorites. When you can, look for the "old vine" varieties, where the vines are at least 40 years old, producing very small quantities of very small grapes. All of this concentrates the flavors into something special. If you are really lucky, you might find some "ancient vine" Zinfandels, where the vines are over 100 years old. Grab them. The best of these come from the Russian River in California, though there are a couple in Napa.  

Sangiovese - this one is relatively new in its use in this country at least and is making some powerful wines. Originating in Italy, it is sometimes called "Super Tuscans". These can approach the oak and tannin of the Cabernets, without costing nearly as much or being nearly as bitter. They have a little bite, but are drinkable right away. They are appearing all over California, with some spreading to the Northwest. 

Cabernet Sauvignon - this is the king of red wines and justifiably so. Often blended with other red grapes to speed up its drink-ability, the flavors can be all over the place. There are a few inexpensive blends that are good, but many of these carry a heavy burden of tannin and oak (the stuff that makes you make a face when you drink it) If you want the real thing you will have to pay the price and / or sit on the wine for a while. Aging of a Cabernet causes the bitterness of the oak and tannins to slowly disappear, leaving behind an exceptional wine. Be prepared to store it for at least 5 years though (10 is better if you can stand the wait). The best are called Reserve or Grand Reserve wines, which means that all of the grapes come from the same vineyard. Australia does as good a job as anyone with the blended variety, but Napa and Sonoma are king for the top wines in my opinion. 

Port - this should almost be in a class by itself. It is a fortified desert wine with a hint of berries and sweetness. It also has a higher alcohol content, which means that you don't have to finish the bottle right away. Purists will tell you that you need to finish the bottle in a couple of weeks, but I have had some open for months without it going bad. There are a number of versions based on aging in the barrel (6, 12, 20 year old), and vintage ports as well. The 2000 vintage, if you can find it, is particularly good. Most of the best come from Portugal, but there are some US examples worth trying.  

Madeira - this is a desert wine as well, though it is sweet without being overwhelmingly so. It is also a fortified wine and can remain open for long periods due to the higher alcohol content. Be careful buying this one, as most of the cheaper varieties are suitable only for cooking. There are a few from California out there that make this well worth the effort to obtain. In addition to the mystery of the wines themselves, there are a lot of myths about the storing and serving of red wines (or white ones for that matter), and some hidden truths as well.  

- Red wine should be served a little below room temperature, not at it. Like the whites, the wine will change as it warms and also as it is exposed to air "breathes". If you want to save it past one night however, you should invest in one of the vacuum pumps and pull the air out. These are relatively inexpensive and will by you an extra day or two at least. (this holds true for white wine as well) 

- All wine should be stored below room temperature (around 60 degrees), hence the wine cellars. This slows and enhances the aging process for better wines. - All wine should be stored on its side. This keeps the cork moist. If the cork dries out, it will shrink and let air in, turning the wine into vinegar. My best advice is to take the foil that is over the cork off when you put wine in storage. This will allow you to see if the wine "creeps up the cork". If you see this, open the bottle before the wine seeps to the end. 

- Decanting is not always necessary to serving wine, but can be worthwhile. It exposes the wine to air and allows it to breathe more quickly. It also allows you to either filter out or trap any sediment that might be in the bottom of the bottle. Most of us will never see this sediment, but it is in some of the better, older wines. 

- Wine glasses are important. Some people like the smaller ones for white wine, the bigger ones for red, and champagne flutes for ... champagne. I have all of the different sizes, but personally I like the bigger ones for all of my wines to concentrate the vapors in the glass. A lot of the "taste" of the wine come through the smell or "nose" of the wine.  

- Likewise swirling the wine in the glass can enhance the experience. It coats the sides of the bigger glasses, which enhances the aroma. (It also makes you look pretty cool if you do it right.) 

- Never put your wine glasses in the dishwasher. No matter how good it rinses the glasses, over time the soap with permeate the glass and affect the taste of the wine. You should be able to keep them clean enough by washing them by hand in hot water. OK, end of the lecture. Go out there, experiment, and have some fun.

Wine (White)

I am going to take a rare departure from my normal brand of nonsense to prepare a couple of serious postings on a subject near and dear to my heart. Wine is one of my passions (along with great cigars and single-barrel whiskeys), and though learning about it is an never-ending process, I thought that I would share a few of the secrets that I have learned over the 26 years that I have been on my personal quest for enlightenment. 

I have always thought that the biggest shame about wine is that so many people fail to stray outside of the traditional Chardonnay / Cabernet offerings when there is so much out there that is really fun to experience. So I am going to touch on some of that variety and share my feelings on some of what is out there in the hopes that some of you out there reading this will expand your horizons. I may only touch on the bare bones of the subject, but this should give you a good place to begin your own journey.  

Please remember that none of these statements should be considered absolutes and all are strictly my opinion (good for a cup of coffee at Starbucks if you have $5), but the mistakes can often be as fun and instructive as anything that you could learn from me. The subject is too vast to cover in one posting, so I will do the best that I can on white wine here, and try again with reds on the next posting. I will also talk about some of the BS and truth that surrounds wine in this 2nd posting. Some of it is worth knowing. Please excuse also, my lack of knowledge on the European varieties. I know that they are supposed to be the best, but even after all of this time, I don't feel that I know enough about them to speak on their quality. I should note also, that I will not make specific recommendations as to a particular vineyard, but could be persuaded to part with such information on specific request. I will also try and list these wines in order of sweetness, from driest to sweetest. 

Semillon - this wine is often used for blending, but can taste great on its own. It tends to be very dry, with hints of apple and pear flavors and a hint of oak. (I like to say that it is as dry as a popcorn fart, but I tend to use strange images.) There are good ones produced in both California and Australia that are very reasonably priced. Pinot Grigio - this one tends toward peachy flavors with a tart finish. A very crisp wine that's great for sipping on a warm summer night, this one needs a bit of chilling. There are good ones to be found in both California and Oregon.  

Sauvingnon Blanc - this one tends towards an acid, citrus-like flavor and probably should be at least lightly-chilled as a consequence. Some of the better ones are labeled Fume Blanc instead, and tend to be a little less tart. My favorites here are from California. 

Chenin Blanc - this is an important grape in California because they retain their acidity and they are used a good bit for blending, but there are some goods wines to be had in this variety that are bottled under this name. It is often used as a significant component of White Zinfandel. (Sorry, but this is the only mention you will get from me on this blend. There are some rare examples that aren't Kool Aid, but for the most part, it just scares me.) The best examples of this that I have found were from California. 

Pinot Blanc - this wine is a dirty little secret for those who drink ABC wines (Anything But Chardonnay). It tends to be dry, but with little of the oak flavors that can make even Chardonnay a little bitter. It is not widely known, but if you can find a bottle, try it.  

Chardonnay - this wine comes in two varieties. The drier version leans towards the acid of a Sauvignon Blanc, having more citrus-like flavors, and sometimes with a hint of oak. There is another, more buttery version of this wine that is not nearly as tart, but retains a hint of the oak. Look for a wine that talks about a Malolactic fermentation if this is the style that you want to try. Surprisingly, this wine should not be too chilled. The better the wine, the less you want to chill it, as the lower temperature the more of the flavor can be hidden. There are so many good ones out there from all of the wine regions in the US and Australia that it would take an entire posting just to cover them. Don't be afraid of some of the blends either.  

Riesling - this one comes in a dry and off-dry variety with the sweetness varying accordingly. It tends to a higher residual sugar content though and you need to be prepared for the "pucker". California does OK with this wine, but Washington and Oregon tend to do better and as a rule 'late harvest' ones tend to be sweeter.  

Muscat - this one is really sweet, and really should be served as a desert wine. Unless you really like a sweet kind of wine, it can tend to be sugar water. I always recommend that you share your first bottle with friends, as a little bit can go a long way. That being said, it can be fun, served chilled on a hot day. I have found more from California than anywhere else.  

Ice Wine - this is sweetest of the bunch and is not to be taken on lightly. It should be consumed in small quantities both because of this sweetness, and because it costs a fortune. It is called ice wine because the grapes have to be left on the vines until the temperature is below freezing for 24 hours. The freezing removes some of the water from the grapes and concentrates the sugars unbelievably (and also makes picking them one of the most miserable jobs on the planet). Even a half bottle can go for a pretty steep price, but it is a fun wine with some apple pie or vanilla ice cream. The best come from the Niagra On The Lake region of Ontario, Canada; though NY does some respectable wines as well. My recommendation with most of these wines would be to chill them pretty well to start with, then taste a little bit as you go along. You will be amazed at the change in the flavor and complexity as the wine warms up a bit. 

The most important thing to learn is that more expensive is not always better, and that the best wines are the ones that you like. I hope that you get to take advantage of this and taste a wine that you haven't had before. I will finish up with the reds tomorrow. 

Enjoy

 

Global Warming - Local Indoctrination

By now, many of you have probably heard the story from Holloway Elementary School in Holland about the presentation made on global warming Greenpeace stirs up controversy at local school : News : NBC24 . My own opinions on the subject are well documented, having been covered in a previous posting "Global Warming", dated 9/15/07, so I won't repeat them. I have to say though that if I were a resident of Holland, and especially if I had a child in Holloway, that I would be outraged. How I would react if that child were in the class lectured simply scares me. Now I know that we are not supposed to question Global Warming, or the motives of those trying to educate us. I am however, outraged here about a couple of things:

1. That tax dollars would used to provide a forum for liberal indoctrination on any subject. I am especially concerned that this would be done to those at such an impressionable age.
2. That facts currently in debate on the potential impact of Global Warming on polar bears should be used to scare children into accepting the opinion of the presenter.
3. That fourth grade students would be asked to copy a letter to Rep. Marcy Kaptur word for word on the subject of the "Safe Climate Act", just another meaningless law to make us feel better about ourselves.
4. That the principal agreed that the students in question were not doing these letters voluntarily, but were instead doing what they had been told to do and that this was "part of the learning experience". (By the way, what kind of learning experience are we talking about here?)
5. That the school brought in not a professor or teacher; but a student and a representative of Greenpeace, an organization that has often been categorized as an "eco-terrorist group".
6. That no opposing point of view was brought in for discussion and the principal laughed at the idea of doing so.
7. That the superintendant of the district said that an opposing point of view might be brought in, if one could be found that was "credible". Are we talking truly credible, or simply as credible as Greenpeace?

I can only hope that the report on this presentation stirs some additional debate. I would also be interested in hearing what the local Board of Education has to say on the subject and that Channel 24 takes the opportunity to follow up with a response from them.

Reality Shows

I would like to say something on the subject of Reality Shows, but am a little uncomfortable about doing so. You see, I've never actually watched one all the way through. (Sorry, but at my age, you don't have a lot of time to waste on crap, and these shows set off my BS detectors at maximum range.) Now you might think that having admitted at a limited first hand information on the subject, I would be be reticent to pass judgement. You would however be wrong. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a dedicated viewer to glean the message that these shows are putting forward. So let me get right out in front of the subject by saying the following:

1. There are too many reality shows on television! It shows that television has become a lot like the movies, and can't seem to come up with an original idea. It is actually a shame that either there is so little creativity left in Hollywood, or that corporate ownership has taken over so much that all we are left with is the spectacle and the gore as they incestuously feed on each other.
2. It is scary to think that so many people have so little of a life themselves that they would find the lives of a former rock star, a former wrestler, a couple of washed up child actors, a tattoo artist or two, a bunch of arctic fishermen, or a few complete strangers living together in a pretty neat house or on an island (the list could go on and on) a substitute for that lack in their own life.
3. The behavior exhibited on these shows might be used by religious fundamentalists as evidence that Evolution does not exist; or if it does, that God has nothing to do with it by choice. It's a shame that casting directors feel the need to seek out the "culls" of society for these shows. There can be no art in a form of media which exhibits the dregs, freaks, and mental and moral midgets of a society. These people should only get credit for performing the same task that the recruiter in a circus freak show does.

OK, I have that out of my system. The bottom line here is that these shows showcase the very worst about human beings as a species. Self-indulgence, self-absorption, and self-abuse vie with bad manners, bad behaviour, and bad genes in a cage match to the death of a polite society. What's makes it all worse is that the content of these shows not only exhibit and celebrate the worst depravities of the human soul (OK, sub-human), they in fact reward the worst of these characters and laud them.

Adding to the ludicrous nature of the whole thing is the feeding frenzy of the rest of the media. Instead of decrying the behavior depicted as examples of anti-social lunacy, like dung beetles many of them crawl over these bits of natural fertilizer in a feeding frenzy. Touting these performances as if they were bits of Shakespearean theatre, they gasp in breathless anticipation of the next episode's shenanigans.

You know, the Roman Empire truly began to die when the morals of its society decayed beyond healing. What followed was the growing spectacle of the arena and the slippery slide down the slope of societal degradation where brutality and victory were all that mattered. Well as the old Emerson, Lake, and Palmer song says: "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you can attend, come inside, come inside."
Enjoy the show my friends, because the hordes of barbarians not actually participating in these shows are standing right outside the gate, waiting to move in.