Frank

"My infatuation with Snatch might be the most normal thing about me."
Yeah. It's going on your gravestone. I guarantee it.

I proudly admit that I'm a fellow sports junkie. (Not to the extent that you are, but come basketball season, watch out!)

Still, as you can read in my post, I'm equally a political junkie. I watch McLaughlin Group while you're watching Pardon The Interruption, I suppose (which, of course, means we're both pathetic).

My point is, I don't think sports and politics are mutually exclusive (I do wish politics and religion were mutually exclusive, but that's a different discussion...and as for sports and religion, I'm a diehard Red Sox fan but even I get sick of Curt Schilling's preaching!)

I mean, politics plays out in sports (or vice versa) on so many levels, whether it's a city's attempts to build a new stadium or much larger national issues, such as steroid use--and these days even animal cruelty. All of those sports issues are played out in very real political arenas.

As for the heart attack scenario, maybe it's better to look at it this way: If you do get a heart-attack while watching a game, will you be properly insured?

Shawn,

In response to your response, which somehow ended up in Ryan's thread...

You make seveal good points, namely that sports is (in theory) a meritocracy while politics seem to be more about who you know, how much money you raise, and how you present yourself.

However, we both know that major sports are not played on a level playing field (pun intended). That is, the very Yanks you cite (or even my beloved Red Sox) have an unfair financial advantage over smaller market teams, such as the Royals; NBA superstars like Jordan and Shaq consistently "got calls" from the refs (when those refs weren't busy fixing games, of course)...my point being that sports can be every bit as down and dirty (and unfair) as politics.

Instead, I see political involvement as a necessary evil of sorts--it's the price we pay for a democracy.

If anything, sports has taught me how to appreciate politics more...as a lifelong fan of the Red Sox, Chiefs, and KU hoops, I've come to learn that you don't win every game, but you struggle to improve (in fact, I often think that fans demand more from their teams than they do from their country).

It seems like America's been having a "rebuilding season" for seven years now...at a time when we're divided over war, immigration, gay marriage, stem cells, etc., I don't think we can afford to watch from the sidelines (to keep with the sports metaphors...)

Let's give this another try. Who said making comments would be easy? I'll try to remember everything I wrote the first time.

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your comments and the points you made.

Maybe I'm of the mind frame that sports are played on a more equal playing field compared to politics because the NFL is back and it is a model example of how sports leagues should be run. However, like I said, there's at least a "sense" of equality in sports, that David can beat Goliath.

Despite teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, storied franchises that spend more money than other franchises by tens of millions of dollars, less fortunate franchises have proven they can compete with them.

The Arizona Diamondbacks and Florida Marlins both won World Series Championships within just a few years of expansion. Then the Marlins won a second World Series in 2003 against a Yankees team whose payroll was almost three times that of their own. Last season, the Marlins had a payroll of just under $15 million, which was the lowest in Major League Baseball (the next lowest was the D-Rays at $35.4 million), yet they almost made the playoffs.

In the American League, the Detroit Tigers used to be where the Royals are now. Actually, they were probably worse, losing a combined 225 games between 2002 and 2003, yet they were a few botched plays from winning the World Series last fall and looked built for a championship this season, even though it hasn't worked out so well.

So, my point is, although the Royals will never spend $200 million, with a new GM who demands more of a commitment out of ownership, they could be spending as much as $80-$90 million in the next few years. If they can spend it wisely, there's no reason they can't compete.

As for NBA refs, well, that's a whole other blog in itself. The favoritism they've shown to star players is a blatant flaw in sports that will probably never be resolved, so I agree wholeheartedly with you there.

To try to relate my Yankees/Royals comparison to politics, it seems to me that even if a candidate spends campaign money wisely and runs a great campaign, if the other candidate is more well known and has more funding available, they will still win. That's probably painfully simplified, but that's how it seems to me.

Thanks again and keep the sports metaphors coming. They keep me interested and hopefully they'll help me become less ignorant in the realm of politics.

Shawn