Frank

So I've bounced back and forth as to what I should blog about this week and, as punishment for taking so long, I'm up at the crack of dawn on a Saturday.

This week provided even more fuel to my abhorrence for the New York Yankees. Why won't they just die?!

As some of you may have been aware, earlier this week the Yankees were eight games back in the AL East and and a couple games out of the Wild Card chase heading into a three-game series with the Boston Red Sox.

Here was a chance for the Sox to put the race in the East out of the Yankees' reach and give the Seattle Mariners some help in the Wild Card. So what happened? The Yankees swept, of course. Now they're five games out in the East and a game up in the Wild Card and they have three games left against both the Red Sox and Mariners to gain ground in the East or solidify the Wild Card.

It seems my only hope of watching a Yankee-less playoffs lies in the Red Sox rebounding at Fenway against the Yankees and the Detroit Tigers getting hot against some subpar opponents in September.

Now, some of you are probably wondering: "Why is this guy so preoccupied with the Yankees? He's a Royals fan." Well, that's a loaded question my friend, so let's get to it.

As a Royals fan, the Yankees go against everything I stand for and every thing I love about baseball. Since the present day has been so brutal to us Royals faithful, it helps a little to stay in the past, back when the Royals were the team to beat. Yet, even as good as the Royals were, the Yankees were usually standing in our way (see 1976-1978). In fact, had the Royals won game five of the 1977 ALCS, there never would have been a Mr. October.

But I don't just loathe the Yankees because of disparities in payrolls or games that were played decades ago. I can't even stand their fans. Every time I see someone in Lawrence, Kansas, wearing a Yankees hat or t-shirt I cringe. Could their be any lower lifeforms on the planet?!

And I think Yankee fans are the main reason I despise the pinstripers. I just don't understand them. Granted, there are the chosen few who are actually from New York, or had a relative from New York who was a die hard fan and passed it on to them. A few of them have probably actually been to Yankees Stadium. But other than that, Yankee nation is comprised of people - and I use the word loosely - who are too weak to devote their heart and soul to a team that isn't the odds-on favorite to win the World Series every year. The more I've thought about it, I've realized that every true baseball fan has had to suffer.

Brooklyn fans lost their beloved Dodgers. New York fans lost the (baseball) Giants. Fans in Philadelphia and Kansas City lost the A's. Red Sox fans endured 86 years of torture before winning their sixth World Series. Cubs fans haven't felt the bliss of a World Series title since 1908. Fans of the Royals and Pirates can only bask in the glory of yesteryear. Fans of the Devil Rays have nothing to look forward to. The list goes on. But not for Yankees fans.

And I don't even want to hear about their World Series "drought" between 1978 and 1996. I think 22 Championships could hold me over for a couple decades, especially if my team would eventually bounce back with four more in five years.

To be a baseball fan(atic) is to dream. To every Spring, dream of a pennant race, no matter how long the odds. To every offseason, dream of your club landing the big-name free agent, whether you can afford him or not. To dream of youngsters like Alex Gordon and Billy Butler growing up into All-Star talents.

But none of that comes with being a Yankees fan. These are the people who go to bed at night, close their eyes and wait to wake up. No dreaming. These are the people who, when asked what they wanted to be when they grew up, probably said, "Older." They don't dream. They make lists. And if their boys don't live up to their checklists, then they boo them and call for the manager's head, the general manager's head, the groundskeeper's head - it doesn't matter.

So, to answer your question, I'm embedded in this AL playoff hunt because I'm hoping against hope that Yankee fans, for at least one more year, go unrewarded for their lack of imagination. So that maybe this year turns into 20 years and possibly then, they'll know what it feels like to dream.

In case you haven't heard, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park signed a three-season renewal contract Tuesday. The $75 million deal will make the duo filthy rich, but more importantly, it guarantees that one of the most important shows on television will continue to air until 2011.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070828/tv_nm/southpark_dc;_ylt=Alp1fpZ8pgcWt.7Ol578UGxxFb8C

You read that last part right, South Park, the same show that features talking feces, an action hero Jesus and countless other offenses, is one of the most important, no necessary shows on television today.

Over and over South Park has have pushed the envelope in areas other programs refuse to touch and in the process the show has done a service to the First Amendment and freedom of expression. No religious group, ethnicity or trend is safe and given the hectic production schedule of each episode (which is animated, voiced and edited in a week) a timelier sitcom cannot be found.

An excellent example of this is the two-part "Cartoon Wars" episode from season 10.

Created during the protests over the political cartoon in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaperhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#_note-45, the episodes focused on the taboo that began to form around the image of Muhammad and the ramifications this taboo had on the First Amendment. While the episodes ignored the concept of cultural sensitivity, it made the point that whenever anyone, be it a single person, a nation or television network submits to the manipulative qualities of threat and fear, terrorism wins.

Parker and Stone backed up their statement by featuring an image of the prophet in one of the final scenes of the episode, only to see Comedy Central censor the image for fear of a backlash. Later, a crudely animated, reprisal cartoon from the terrorists featured images of Jesus shitting on George W. Bush and vice versa. This scene was aired uncensored, reinforcing the point that in topics of free speech, it is either open season on everything or nothing. Showing disrespectful images of one religious figure and not another creates the illusion of favoritism and limits expression.

While statements like this one have been echoed throughout opinion columns and the Internet, since the initial fervor, South Park is a show watched by a largely 18-24-year-old audiencehttp://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/29/business/nielsen.php. These are issues everyone should be considering, but especially students and young people who will play a vital role in the future of this country. Every now and then South Park is able to sneak a message in between fart jokes and that is why it's necessary.

I once heard that auto racing is the most popular sport in America. I thought, "That makes sense. We're in the middle of an oil crisis that demands we send our young men and women to fight, and often die, in a region of the world that has that energy supply. Why wouldn't we, as a country, enjoy watching cars drive in circles really fast?"

In case you missed the facetious nature of my first statement, then I will come right out and say it. The huge popularity of NASCAR is one of the finest examples of American insanity that I have ever seen.

Thankfully, auto racing is not the most popular sport in the nation. The general consensus amongst experts is that it is probably the fifth most popular sport, just slightly behind hockey. NASCAR is the second most watched sport on television behind football. It is the most highly sponsored sport by Fortune 500 companies and has 17 out of the top 20 most attended sporting events. So it's not the MOST popular, but it's still an awfully damn popular "sport".

Now don't get me wrong. I completely understand that the amount of gas used by NASCAR is not even a drop in the 139 billion gallon bucket of gas that America consumes each year. It's the self destructive paradox inherent in the culture they promote that disgusts me.

Sports are supposed to uplift the human spirit and make us realize how great we can be if we work hard enough. Professional athletes are capable of doing things that many of us will never be able to do and in so doing they teach us about ourselves in relation to ideals such as team work, sacrifice and dedication. Automobile racing does not teach these things and in fact it undermines these ideals in relation to the reality of an energy crisis because it undermines the fact that it will take team work, sacrifice and dedication for our country to overcome its oil crisis.

NASCAR is automobile idolatry and if those "athletes" behind the wheel are heroes just because they are capable of driving fast and reckless over long periods of time without killing themselves then my picture should have been put on a postage stamp when I turned 20. There is nothing admirable or virtuous about auto racing. It is a travesty that those guys get praised for living after acting dangerously while soldiers in the middle east die while acting responsibly and heroically.

My best friend/current roommate has been a bit out of luck lately. Getting laid off from his job because management was coming up short on work for the end of summer has caused him to go into a mild depressive state which consists of surrounding himself with people he likes, drinking alcohol, and playing a lot of Xbox. All good things in measure and I can't say that I blame him at all. Losing his job was a blow to his self esteem and, now, my wallet. I make plenty of money in my 30-plus-hours-a-week-part-time-job to support us for the time being, but that in itself is making life pretty hard on me. Thirty hours a week in a kitchen is, for lack of a better word, not fun at all.

My buddy's recent unemployment will be fixed shortly, though, because he's a very determined person and already has leads for jobs and interviews. I'm not worried about him, but it makes me consider people who aren't as lucky as him, and suffer extended unemployment with little hope of even rejoining the work force.

This last January I visited San Francisco and witnessed the cities immense population of homeless people, unable to take care of themselves save for begging on the street corners, bus stops with the permeating smell of garbage and piss, or in the subway just to get out of the pouring rain. It really was a tragic eye opener for me. My only experience with homelessness (I'm from a really small town) had been the few I'd seen around downtown Lawrence. I was shocked to see just how many people couldn't afford to take care of themselves with even the barest of necessities.

I was rather disconcerted at how most people going to work, getting their morning Starbucks fix treated the many homeless people around the city. It's not that they treated them bad or anything like that… they mostly just ignored them, passing by the outstretched hand or the opened guitar case. We seem to, as a society, have become dull to the fact that there are people less fortunate than ourselves living right alongside us. They're not in a country halfway across the world in a remote, third-world village; they're here.

I suppose that experience is one of the factors that has led to my ill feelings to some of the more outspoken animal activist groups. I realize that animals aren't always being treated in the most civilized way (just Google Michael Vick) but I think we should try to take a little more action on the well being of human beings. Do I think humans are more important that animals? You bet your ass I do, and I think fretting about animals wearing lipstick seems a little ridiculous in comparison. That isn't to say that I believe animals should be treated this way, just that I think people should be taken care of first and foremost.

You might be wondering what my all encompassing solution to homelessness might be, but I'll tell you the truth. I don't have one. It is a big problem that one simple patch on the dam won't fix. But I think that if we want to talk about equality and civil rights, we should take a closer look at what's happening in our own backyard.

Since the first time I visited Lawrence as a child, I associated Lawrence's popularity with its downtown, more specifically Massachusetts Street, of course. This was at a time in my life when I was completely enthralled by anything associated with Lawrence or the University of Kansas. I thought that what we have here is better than any other city or site that I had visited. Now that I have lived in Lawrence for nearly four years and have visited other great college towns, I am starting to revisit how great Lawrence's social and economic "hot spot" is.

Anyone can see how vastly popular and successful the downtown is by going to Mass Street on a gorgeous Saturday afternoon. There is hardly a spot to park on the main drag and the sidewalks are bustling with an array of people. It's not like this all the time though. When I go to downtown a lot to go bar hopping, Mass Street is a ghost town with a few drunken stragglers dotted along the sidewalks. Yes, I know most families are asleep then, but where is everyone else? I look at Iowa City, Iowa for an answer to this scenario. The home of the University of Iowa, this downtown bustles until almost 3 a.m. Why there and not here? The main part of this downtown is based around a city square, or as they call it, a pedestrian mall. There are an abundance of late night food vendors, a city square packed with bars and plenty of seating and décor to keep the most sober of minds occupied. Popular shops and restaurants line the streets that branch from this main meeting point. I am not saying that Lawrence needs to accommodate the town drunks, but city planners need to gain a better sense of community spaces.

These congregation spots work for those late at night, but even more importantly for the rest in the community to share during the day. Another college town that exhibits this notion of a town square, and that I am very familiar with, is Ft. Collins, Co. Home of Colorado State University, and the distinguished title of "Best Place to Live" by Money Magazine, Ft. Collins is home to "Old Town Square", a congregation spot much like Iowa City's, but is used just as much during the day than at night. Old Town Square holds concerts regularly, an assortment of shops and restaurants, ornamentation such as waterfalls and sculptures and even an ice skating rink in the winter months. From this description alone, Lawrence's downtown is lacking.

I understand city planners 30 or 40 years ago didn't plan for Lawrence's downtown to be designed that way, but with the ongoing effort to keep Lawrence's economy localized, this would be a great way to bolster that platform. These two college towns that I have given as examples have monstrous malls in the vicinity, but the downtown doesn't suffer one bit. As much as Lawrence residents complain about a new Wal-Mart and bringing a shopping mall to Lawrence, the best way to deal with these issues is to strengthen what we already have, a downtown with great community appeal and POTENTIAL. Make the Mass Street experience in all of downtown so Vermont and New Hampshire Street can create a sense of a complete downtown feeling.

Wow! From #5 in the polls to being unranked, well done Big Blue, well done! I didn't think such a move was even possible, well then again I didn't think that it was possible for an Appalachian State to win in the Big House. Now, the question that is going to be raised, especially among Michigan fans, is should coach Lloyd Carr be fired for running a senior laden team with national championship aspirations into the ground?

Of course! It's sad it takes the biggest upset in college football history, maybe even in all of college athletics, to realize that you have an uninspiring coach for a program that expects to win a national championship on a regular basis. When was the last time that Michigan won a national title? Guesses anyone? 1997, and it was a shared national championship because the BCS system didn't start until the next year. It is difficult to win a national title in college ball, but to have 110,000 fans cheering you on, you should be able to blow out a 1-AA school from Boone, North Carolina. Come on Coach Carr! You're paid big money to at least beat the small, "we'll come get slaughtered for a fat check" schools. Hey, Kansas even beat Appalachian State!

Oh, and another reason Carr should be shown the door: THE Ohio State. Enough said.

For the people a) from Appalachian State b) who can't stand Michigan, congrats! Don't get too comfortable though, Michigan will be back. Football is life in Ann Arbor, and it will be back to fine form soon.

For the poor Michigan fans, students and alumni, I hope you're awake now. A couple of decent seasons look so distant now, huh? Carr has to go; it's like an old forest that needs to be burned to the ground to regenerate life. The lightning has struck and it's time to let the fire burn.

Next on the chopping block: Charlie Weis, NFL genius/college hack job. Maybe you need to start looking for a job in the NFL.

I cannot tell you how many times I've walked to class across campus and lost count of the inefficient lawn watering practices used by the University of Kansas. I have never been a homeowner, but growing up in north Texas, I did have to pay attention to the water restrictions during the summer drought months.

Improper water use on its 950 acre campus will cost the University millions over the years. KU adopted an Environmental Policy in 1997 and listed eight specific goals; among them: "Minimize water use through efficient management and practice", and "Be attentive to biodiversity and environmental concerns in planning and landscape decisions." However, I often question whether the University is really documenting rainfall to minimize irrigation or using non-potable water for all the lovely landscaped hills on Mount Oread.

It isn't just one little sprinkler in front of Douthart Scholarship Hall that gets me heated. For the 2006 fiscal year, KU Facilities Operations-maintained irrigation systems used 6,871,580 gallons of water according to a spring 2007 Audit of the Campus Landscape. This does not include the 4,989,900 gallons used by KU Athletics for their sports fields. In all, there are 22 irrigation systems located though out campus, 8 of which are located on West Campus.

KU was named one of the 12 most beautiful campuses in North America by author Thomas A. Gaines in his 1991 book, The Campus as a Work of Art. He was particularly struck by the "large amounts of open green space incorporated into the KU landscape." So in order to keep these luscious green areas beautiful, I thought I would share some of the tips I learned as an eighth grader (with help from RainBird) so maybe fewer of my tuition dollars will be used to water an asphalt surface at high noon:

1. Watch your watch
Water between 5 a.m. and 10 a.m. when the sun is low, winds are calm and temperatures are cool. Setting the sprinkler to run at noon is inefficient because evaporation and windy conditions during the day. Even Texans understand this point.

2. Water only things that grow
Sidewalks, cars and streets waste money. Adjust sprinkler heads to avoid them. Bonus tip: sprinkler head should spray large droplets of water instead of a fine mist to minimize evaporation and wind drift.

3. Keep your eye on the sky
Adjust your irrigation system as the seasons and weather change. It's pointless to turn on an irrigation system if Mother Nature has already picked up the tab.

4. Don't drown
The greatest waste of water comes from applying too much, too often. Instead of watering for one long session, water a few times for shorter periods and take 15-minute breaks in between each session. This will allow water to soak in, while minimizing runoff. Kansas doesn't need more flooding.

5. Do routine inspections
Check sprinklers to make sure everything is working properly. We've all seen the sprinkler head pouring water across mulch. Don't be the culprit of water waste.

So I've heard some buzz about whether or not everyone at the University should be required to study abroad. Those against it say it's not feasible, that financially it's too hard on students, and therefore it shouldn't be required for everyone.

But I think everyone should do study abroad. And frankly, I can't say whether or not individual students can be expected to afford such an experience or not. Here is what I can say: Studying abroad changed my life.

And I hate to pull this card, but it's true: Until you have been abroad (and I don't mean to Canada or Cabo), you can't really fathom what the experience will do to you.

Nothing in America can prepare you for standing in the muggy belly of a foreign city, trying to comprehend a metro map in an alien language while an impatient stream of people rub past you.

Nothing domestic knocks you down a notch like sitting at a restaurant in the middle of France, running your finger down the menu and realizing you have no idea what anything means, and therefore, you're at the mercy of pure chance as to whether you get salmon or raw horsemeat.

If I had to describe exactly how study abroad benefited me, I'm not sure I could give tangibles. But think of it like camping. When I was a Boy Scout, we were required to go on monthly camping trips. I was never excited to go. I was always thinking of all the friends I could be seeing, video games I could be playing or even the homework I could be doing.

But as soon as we got out of the city limits and stepped foot into the wild, as soon as we caught that first breeze of clean air, I remembered that there was something about camping that I absolutely loved. It set me free. It got me out of my banal school situations and my home environment. I saw who I was and what I was like when the daily routine and baggage were cut away. I got to stretch and spread my wings. I saw a fresh side of myself and earned confidence. So it is with being in another country.

One thing many of us Americans lack is humility. One thing study abroad gave me was a big dose of just that. I don't know how many times I had to rely on the kindness of strangers while I was in Europe. I hated not being able to pull my own weight. I hated being needy. I felt like I was doing a month-long trust fall exercise. But I'll never forget the relief I felt from watching a pair of foreign eyes soften as their owner explained to me how to get to the nearest metro station.

Studying abroad didn't really extend my knowledge along the lines of thinking I already had. It opened up entirely new worlds and dimensions and paradigms. I thought one way before; I thought a different way after I returned.

And yes, it cost a lot of money. And yes, it was difficult. But I would never want to go back to the way I was before I went to Europe.

Yesterday Apple Computers announced its new line of iPods. While this isn't a shock (September is always new iPod month) there were a couple of announcements that made even the most diehard Zune user take notice: The introduction of the iPod Touch and the price drop on the iPhone.

Okay, so the iPod Touch is basically an iPhone without the phone part, but what makes this product (and the iPhone, for that matter) so exciting is the increased functionality of the Internet browser. Yes, there are other handhelds that get online, but it's the synchronicity of applications like Google Maps and YouTube that make these products stand out. And with the upcoming iTunes WiFi Music Store it will soon be possible to download music, movies, games and TV shows from anywhere.

That feature alone could usher in a new era for digital distribution and direct-to-user downloading. PC and home gaming consoles already offer purchasable games and bonus content, but WiFi-enabled handheld gaming systems could follow suit, if Apple's venture proves successful.

The iPhone and iPod Touch also bring up some interesting marketing tie-ins. Both products will connect to the wireless networks inside Starbucks. The last ten songs played in the store stream directly to either product and can be purchased directly from the iTunes WiFi Store.

Again, there are a lot of possibilities here if the service becomes popular. Advertisers could broadcast deals or specials directly to your iPhone or iPod Touch or you could access music and video from retail stores, clothing chains and even small, independents and it would be the most accurate advertising possible, presenting it directly to the user.

It will be interesting to see how all of this pans out for Apple. Is instant Internet access and an all-in-one music/video/Web browser/camera/text messenger that important? The company anticipates the sale of its one-millionth iPhone by the end of this month, so it must be to some people.

While this technology is fascinating, it's also a little scary, especially the iPhone considering it puts all of your digital eggs in one collective basket. Before if someone stole your iPod you could at least call the cops or if your phone got stolen you could always listen to your favorite music to cheer yourself up. Now if you lose your iPhone, you're completely screwed.

As for me, I use my phone as an alarm clock and usually sleep with it under my pillow, a practice that is probably giving me brain cancer. I would not dream of doing this with an iPhone. Not because I would be scared of breaking it, but because I'm afraid I would wake up the next morning to discover that the item had permanently grafted itself to my brain and replaced important things like childhood memories and fine motor skills with MP3s, YouTube videos of funny cats and Facebook pictures.
A friend of mine has a theory that both of these products are from the future and after watching a video of some idiot kids smash one with a hammer, and seeing the six slivers of moon metal come out, maybe he's right. For now, I'm not taking any chances.

Having professor Ted the law guy visit our class today made me consider the Daily Show. I was surprised he didn't mention Jon Stewart when he was talking about satire.
I think that he is probably right that satire does offer legal protection against cases of libel. He said that as long as the audience can clearly tell it's satire, then the satirist will not have to worry about libel. This left me thinking about the Daily Show because it is well known that many people get their news from Jon Stewart. The producers of the show undoubtedly know this also. So what if Jon Stewart put out a satirical piece portraying Dick Cheney as a sadomasochist who enjoys wearing leather underwear, whipping subordinates and getting whipped by large men dressed like female British nannies. The visual alone screams absurdity as it is obviously a copy and paste of doctored photos. Then Jon Stewart says right before the commercial break, "But seriously, Dick Cheney DOES have a life sized safe in his office, full of leather underwear and whips."
Any one who watches Jon Stewart knows that there are facts interspersed with the absurd satire. That's why it's where so many people access the news. They pick up on those facts, separate them from the satire and they walk away feeling like they are informed citizens. But what if they don't successfully separate the facts from the satire?
I sometimes have difficulty separating the facts from the satire and have gone to the Internet after watching the Daily Show on numerous occasions to see if a claim made there was fact. The most recent, but nowhere near the most significant, example was to see if Rob Riggle was actually in Iraq.
What if Dick Cheney in the previous example, or any one else the Daily Show satirizes, does some research and finds out that the a large portion of the audience walked away thinking a satirical statement was a fact? Would Jon Stewart still be able to claim satire as protection from libel?

I'm going to step out of the realm of sports for this one...well, sort of.

Last year I went through a series of interviews to land a summer internship. Yet, weeks turned into months and I didn't get a single call back. Not until the first week of summer did I find an internship and not until I'd all but taken the job did I find out it was unpaid. However, I got a ton of great experience and a cheap trip to Boston out of it, so I have no complaints.

But looking forward to this summer, I can't afford another unpaid internship.

So, my quest for a summer job begins next Tuesday with my first interview of the semester. The interview is with MLB.com, which I interviewed with last year. As you might have guessed, it didn't go so hot.

Things seemed to start out fine. He - I'll call him Mr. Smith - noticed me reading a book in the hallway, so we talked about that for a while and he acted impressed. I was apparently dressed too professionally, so he had me take off my tie to be more casual, but I didn't figure that hurt me any.

However, when it came time for the "Do you have any questions for me about the internship?" portion of the interview (which came all too soon, as I recall), the interview came to a screeching halt. I thought I was asking intelligent questions (What kind of stories would I write, when I would start working, etc...), but after every one, Mr. Smith looked at me like I had three heads.

As it turned out, Mr. Smith put the most stock in how his interviews went. So, regardless of what my resume, clips and essay looked like, I didn't stand a chance of getting the internship after my interview.

So, this is where you all come in.

The J-School has a great career center, but I figure the best people to get help from are the very people finding journalism jobs right now. A couple of you are graduate students, so I imagine you've all been through this before. The rest of you seem like you've had sweet internships in the past, so you must know what you're doing, too.

So, what kind of advice am I looking for?

Well, assuming I have a respectable resume and clips and write a solid essay, I guess all I need to do is woo my interviewer. What are some good questions to ask when it's my turn to kind of take over the interview?

I must just be too easy going, because I don't care much about salary as long as I'm doing something I enjoy doing, I don't care what city they'd want me to work in because I'm open to moving anywhere, and I don't care how demanding the workload would be because I'll do whatever they ask of me.

So, any advice you all have for me to keep my interviewer from looking at me like I have three heads again will be much appreciated.

I will officially graduate from the University of Kansas in 97 days, but for the last 97 days, I have been consumed with trying to plan my future once outside academia that has sheltered me for three-and-a-half long years. One thing is for sure, I will move to Washington, DC. Beyond that, I have a few different plans slowly firming up.

I recently found an online news article that my roommate who was reading over my shoulder. The article cited a report by the District of Columbia State Education Agency that found about one-third of the people living in my future home are functionally illiterate. Director of the State Education Agency, Connie Spinner, tried to pin the blame of this number, which is higher than the national average of 21 percent, on the growing number of Hispanic and Ethiopian immigrants who currently number 170,000 people.

I, however, refuse to hold this minority responsible for the statistic. Instead, its time America is held accountable for the education it provides 76.6 million children annually. It's not just immigrants that are struggling with literacy, it's children in urban schools across the nation that simply don't get the attention they deserve in order to succeed academically.

In a study conducted by the Department of Education, researchers found students who lived in poverty (i.e., were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) did significantly worse on reading tests than other students surveyed. These students had a third grade reading score 6.1 points below the average and would only make gains at an average pace, never closing the educational gap.

The news article interested me because part of my future plans will hopefully include becoming a part of the Teach For America program– a national corps of college graduates of all academic majors who commit two years to teach in urban and rural public schools and become leaders in the effort to expand educational opportunity. It began in 1990 when 500 men and women began teaching in six low-income communities across the country. They have had a presence in Washington, DC, since 1992, and today more than 5,000 corps members are teaching in 26 urban and rural areas profoundly affected by the achievement gap. The program, which started as an undergraduate thesis of the founder, has become the nation's largest provider of teachers for low-income communities, and has been recognized for building a pipeline of leaders committed to educational equity and excellence.

My thorough research of the program has revealed some shocking statistics to me about the widening gap in education, but I doubt few Americans have the same understanding of the scanty education inner city students receive.

If you find yourself unaware, this scenario from Teach for America might open your eyes:

In America today, educational inequity persists along socioeconomic and racial lines.

These disparities severely limit the life prospects of the 13 million children growing up in poverty today. And, because African-American and Latino/Hispanic children are three times as likely to grow up in a low-income area, these disparities also prevent many children of color from truly having equal opportunities in life.

The corps members working in Washington, DC, know blaming the poor literacy rate on one subgroup of people in the metro area is unreasonable. Immigrants surely account for a small portion of functional illiterates in the city, but a larger portion of the problem is found in the local education system that leaves thousands of students each year without a hope for a basic education even a caring teacher. By operating the Teach For America program in DC, students are learning from the nation's most promising future leaders who go above and beyond traditional expectations to help their students succeed.

On a 2005 survey conducted by the research firm Kane, Parsons & Associates, principals who manage Teach For America teachers overwhelmingly report that they are well prepared and have a significant and positive impact on their schools and on student achievement. The same survey showed that nearly three out of four principals considered the teachers more effective than other beginning teachers with whom they've worked, and 63 percent regarded TFA teachers as more effective than the overall teaching faculty, with respect to their impact on student achievement.

Time will prove that the outstanding men and women in the Teach for America corps are making a difference in the literacy rate of DC residents, but for now it's evident that they are making strides in closing the educational gap that creates the literacy problem in the first place.

So maybe, like these pioneering teachers, if your paycheck isn't from the State Education Agency, you'll be able to see the real and frightening reasons why literacy levels are appallingly low in urban DC and I can only hope it shocks you into action.

While wondering whether Osama Bin Laden and Britney Spears have the same publicist--since neither seems to ever go away and both continue to garner major media coverage for the lamest of "news" (OBL's latest dye-job and Brit's over-hyped VMA performance)--I happened to stumble upon an HBO special last night in which former Soprano mafioso James Gandolfini sat down with a group of wounded Iraq War vets for a series of candid interviews about their injuries.

The special, Alive Day Memories is a definite must-see, regardless of your views on this controversial war. As graphic as it is, it still should be required viewing for every American adult. (*Apparently, if you go to the link I've provided, you should be able to watch the special online.)

I've always said that HBO should be included with basic cable if not for the simple fact that most of the TV viewing public is unable to witness the glory of The Flight of the Conchords or to see Bill Maher's show, which happens to be one of the few remaining outlets for genuine political discourse.

While Gandolfini's special was neither mindless entertainment nor thought-provoking political conversation...it was truly a moving piece of journalism that needs to be viewed and discussed by all of us.

The special did a great job of relaying the experience of combat in Iraq without coming across as preachy, patronizing, or condemning. It simply allowed the soldiers to recount their "alive days" (the day they suffered a serious injury yet managed to survive, thus receiving a new lease on life) in simple, straightforward words. Of course, they also told of the long and difficult recoveries they each face and the monumental changes brought to their lives (one female soldier, for example, lost an arm and now worries if she'll ever find love, have a baby--and most important, whether she'd be able to pick up and hold that baby).

Truly depressing stuff, but, of course, that in itself is no reason to avoid this subject matter. On a night when it was possible to lose yourself in the banality of the MTV Awards or the excitement of the NFL's opening weekend, it's also important to remember that there are thousands of young men and women making major sacrifices for us--their fellow countrymen.

Of course, if you know me at all, you know that I'm opposed to the Iraq War. I feel it was the wrong path to take in avenging the culprits of the 9/11 attacks. Still, this special clearly brings home the level of sacrifice these soldiers are asked to make (whether for a just cause or not)...and it also underscores the importance they feel that this war must have a true purpose (that they can't allow themselves to believe that they lost limbs, brain functions, or simply peace of mind, for a misguided war). I wish I could say I believe that, too, but I simply don't.

The special also brings attention to the fact that we focus on the number of dead soldiers (currently, that figure is more than 3,700), while overlooking the large number of seriously wounded (currently at more than 27,000). Of course, this doesn't even begin to address the number of dead Iraqi civilians (which most estimates place in the tens of thousands) and the number of displaced Iraqi civilians (estimated at more than 2 million).

I think it's quite important on a day when Gen. Petraeus is scheduled to tell us we should stay the course with the surge that we also bear in mind the toll this war is taking on our own soldiers--and the Iraqi civilians.

Moerover, it's also important to realize that making it home from the war alive is often just the beginning of the battle for many of our wounded soldiers.

May the Battle Begin

A phone slams, trash cans are thrown, you dodge clothes as they are hurled out of the window at you….heavy breathing, shaky hands, and tears ensue as your heartbeat kicks in, skyrockets and stays there. Sound familiar yet? With the former hang up perhaps just a month long dating relationship in the latter perhaps years of involvement. In either case if you had been quizzed a month ago on how solid the relationship was you would have undoubtedly said, "its great." You're grandmother could have told you differently, probably something like, "with these things you never know dear." She was right.

Remember that "perfect couple" that got married five years ago only to learn second hand they got divorced two years later? How did that happen? Just how hard is it to keep a relationship alive after the "puppy love" phase of the first few months has gone? There seems to be no easy way.

After a messy break up, I am now entering the single world for the first time in a year, and I found myself attracted to a particular quote from a Chris Rock stand up routine. I think the comedian hit the nail on the head when he once said, "You're either in a relationship and bored as hell or single and lonely as hell."

This break up was so messy in fact that it has me questioning why we try so hard to end up in these situations…spending day after day with the same person, trying to live up to our own abstract notions of what love is.

Sound like Ebenezer Scrooge yet? Well I apologize. It gets worse...if you're looking for long-lasting love and not just the next thing that is. It's a tough world for all you romantics out there.

The statistics don't bode well.

The most commonly cited is that 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce, and 75 percent of second marriages see the same fate. As for live-in affairs, the average arrangement ends after 3 years.

How then are we supposed to find "the one" in a pool made up of so many embittered exs and jilted lovers? How many "ones" can there be out there, and how many times do you keep dating and breaking up before you decide to marry?

Due to the ambiguity of the term "relationship" most researchers say that there is no way to determine exactly how many exclusive relationships on average people have before marriage. Some researchers however suggest that teenagers who either don't date much or date just a few steady partners or casual dates go on to have better quality relationships as adults compared to "heavy daters" who have many and/or overlapping relationships as teenagers.

So in response to the question, "is it worth it (to date, love, etc.)?" I have to tell myself to remember all those wonderful feelings at the beginning of a relationship and remember how great it feels to be in love. In addition, doctors will tell you that the presence of a good relationship can cause better oxytocin levels and increase the quality of life for both partners. Not to mention…it is still the way we populate the world.

So maybe you've given up for a while on the whole dating thing, but eventually, in the face of spending your life alone and moving to an ice castle in Alaska, most experts and statistics will tell you that you will probably get back out there and love again…for that is the human prerogative…to be with others and love. Something uniquely human.

In the end I guess boredom wins.

I still have a few friends who don't own cell phones. One of them can't afford one, the other doesn't want one. My friend who doesn't want one says it's superfluous. She says matter-of-factly that she wouldn't want her life dominated by silly calls and texts and a reliance on a weak substitute for human interaction (At that point I didn't have the nerve to even think about bringing up facebook).

And in many ways, she's completely right about cell phones dumbing-down our lives. I can list numerous times I've walked out of a Budig class next to a someone having a conversation that went something like this: "Dude, hey. Yeah. I just left class. Yeah. I'm going to my next one. Sweet. See ya. Oh wait, [insert inside joke here, such as, "that's what she said!" or, "choc-late rain!"]! Haha. Yeah. Bye." Click.

In all fairness, I must admit that I too have made calls like that. I guess sometimes you just want to know what someone's up to. Cell phones help us feel connected.

But besides wasting little snippets of my time here and there with unnecessary calls and texts, cell phones have also made my life much more efficient. Almost every day my roommates and I call each other about rides to and from campus. When executed properly, it cuts about 10 minutes each off of our daily commutes.

And gone are the days when I had to actually plan a Friday night. Nowadays, I simply pick up the phone when I feel like hanging out and call and meet somebody en route to an activity. Gone are the days of the phonebook. I don't know how I used to do it, sitting at home, thinking of ideas, queuing up my evening's planned events and then calling everyone involved. I actually had to use paper to plan those nights! With my trusty cell phone I can hop from hanging out, to dinner, to a movie, to a party and to a late-night snack, all while I'm in my car driving.

And I don't care if it's a misdemeanor in some places; I'm too attached to calling people while driving. But while we're on the subject, texting while driving is a good way to kill a family.

So what does your cell phone mean to you? Is it a waste of time? Is it an efficiency-creating machine? Is it superfluous? Is it a vital part of your body, like your kidneys? For instance, if you didn't have it for a week, would you die, or at least become jaundiced? That might actually be your liver, but the point still holds.

For me, it's certainly a mix of waste and efficiency, but maybe that's how I would be anyway. Maybe the device isn't to blame; maybe it's operator error. After all, guns don't kill people; people kill people. Maybe the same statement holds: cell phones don't call people; people call people.

If you aren't familiar with it, Nip/Tuck is a series that shows the tangled, mixed up lives of two plastic surgeons in Miami. The show details many issues of the day, such as a man wanting breast implants to get inspiration for a book he's writing to more far-fetched stories of a wicked crime organization that has it's members seducing and taking kidney's out of random bar patrons. The show doesn't focus on the gory side of surgery (although it does show many in vivid, bloody detail) but on the two main characters whose lives are just as fucked up, sometimes even more so, as their patients physical appearances. Basically, the show is just a really well acted and produced soap opera.

In many episodes, there will be a certain theme that resonates with the main characters lives. In a series of episodes, the main characters, Sean and Christian, find themselves at odds with each other finding their practice splitting apart. They are forced to examine their situation when they are called to do a surgery for Rose and Raven Rosenburg (Lori and George Schappell) who are twins conjoined at the head. After a somewhat successful separation, one of the sisters dies and the other one doesn't want to live without her and her mother pulls the life support plug. As the two doctors sew the two women back together, they realize that they are stronger together than apart. It's moments like these, I think, that keep the show from becoming a standard, medical drama.

What the show really excels at, though, is bringing to light how much people in our society, in general, hate themselves so much that they are willing to go to extreme lengths to feel better about themselves. Invasive, unnecessary surgery has become the standard for fixing today's supposed ills, and doctors, like the ones seen in Nip/Tuck, are pushing the business even farther.

There is even a reality show about plastic surgeons on E! called Dr. 90210 chronicling, among others, the practice and home life of Dr. Robert Rey. I was amazed to see the 120 lb. models coming in for liposuction before a shoot. I don't get how people can feel so bad about themselves and find so many flaws that they need to have half a pound of fat sucked out of them. Sometimes I think they need half a pound of common sense injected into their heads.

My point is that people are under a lot of bogus pressure today to look good in order to feel good about themselves. I just wish that people could put aside the glamour media and take stock of what life is really about and enjoy what they've been given.

Whether or not you're a fan of KU football, chances are you've already been alerted to the "viral" video clip of KU football coach Mark Mangino's profanity-laced tirade against one of his players on the sideline of last week's game.

The clip has been posted on YouTube, and, according to a recent Topeka Capital Journal story, it already had some 170,000 hits by Monday.

As the clip shows, Mangino lays into wide receiver Riamond Pendleton after the player capped a wonderful 77-yard punt return by needlessly diving into the end zone--earning his team a penalty for excessive celebration. When Pendleton returns to the sideline, instead of receiving a pat on the back from his head coach, he's greeted by several f-bombs, as Mangino makes it perfectly clear that such behavior will not be tolerated on his squad.

The incident, of course, speaks to much bigger issues of whether student-athletes should be treated any different than any other student; whether, for example, a history professor would be allowed to use such language in reprimanding one of his or her students. A Lawrence Journal World column by KU law professor Mike Hoeflich waves a wagging finger at Mangino and says that the student's rights were violated.

All of this, of course, is really much ado about nothing.

I mean, it has been well-established that college coaches aren't particularly careful with their words. Even gosh-darn, homespun, former KU men's basketball coach Roy Williams had a notorious break from character when he told a national audience--through CBS reporter Bonnie Bernstein--that he couldn't give a sh** about the vacant North Carolina job right after losing the 2003 NCAA championship game (and then did an about-face by taking the job several days later). And, of course, don't even get me started on Bobby Knight's greatest hits (which is more like a box set).

While I can understand Professor Hoeflich's concern for the rights of the student-athletes, I think his column misses the mark. To say that student-athletes are no different than their non-athletic counterparts is simply wishful thinking. They do get special treatment in everything from academic services to free drinks at the bar, so in many ways, I see this as simply part of that deal--they also have to endure hours of intense practices, high-pressure game situations, and regular butt-chewings from angry coaches and fans.

Perhaps lost in the excitement of this recent viral video is the fact that Mangino was reprimanding a player for exhibiting poor sportsmanship on the field. I'm glad that the coach made it clear in no uncertain terms that KU football is not about show-boating. Pendleton's individual play was brilliant, but his individual celebration cost his team in penalty yards. Moreover, it was rather insulting to the visiting team in a game where KU clearly was dominating its smaller and less-athletic opponent.

Surely there are those who are offended by Mangino's language. I'm not among them. Who here hasn't heard those profanities before...and who hasn't uttered such tirades during frustrating times? Besides, these are college football players we're talking about. If you think his language was harsh, you have no idea what these players are probably saying to each other on the field (or what they're hearing from the opposing fans)!

However, it should be noted that this is not the first time that Mangino's short fuse has come into question. In 2002, he was cited for cursing out the refs of his son's high school football game. His son, a high school quarterback at the time, was the recipient of a hard hit that, while ruled fair by the refs, didn't appear legal to the KU coach (and concerned parent). Again, though, I can't really blame the coach for going overboard after seeing his son take what he felt was a cheap shot. I can't think of too many parents (whether justified or not) who wouldn't have done the same. The problem in that case, however, was that Mangino, because of his high-profile job, was allowed to watch the game from the sideline, and therefore he had access to the refs that most parents don't get.

Yes, Mangino could have found a more civil way to express his disapproval with Pendleton, but it's not like he slapped the kid or uttered a racial epithet--and, above all, his tirade was not meant for a public audience, like, say, Williams's s-bomb to Bernstein. Mangino probably does need anger management of some sort, but I don't think this latest outburst is worthy of any sort of official reprimanding by the University.

As the viral video continues to make its way to inboxes around the country, KU should actually see this as a win-win situation: it's entertaining (if not humorous), it shows a coach concerned with preventing unsportsman-like and "me first" behavior, and--best of all--anyone who sees the clip has to sit through one hell of a run-back...er, I mean one h-e-double-hockey sticks of a run-back.

It's become the "where were you" moment of several generations, all at once. Assuming one is too young either to have been alive during the Kennedy assassination or at least too young to place one's own whereabouts, and that the fall of communism is not as all-consuming a topic as it might be for some students of real politic, the aforementioned phrase is now owned by September 11, 2001--and probably will be until either something worse happens, or we all fade into dementia or death.

For everyone not in NYC, or near the Pentagon, near that field in Pennsylvania or aboard one of the ill-fated airliners that hurled their way into this dark history, 9/11 was an extremely mediated experience. It was brought to us through television, the Internet, and newspapers; through phone calls and text-messages. It was immediate, with waves of additional horror stacked one upon another in short succession.

Furthermore, it became the kernel event of so much behavior for so many. It unlocked the wildest fantasies for proponents of the Project for the New American Century, it sent us to war, and it turned legislative priorities on their heads; it became the clarion call for warmongers, fearmongers, and peaceniks alike; and it gave us new inspiration for loving each other as Americans, while at the same time, being suspicious of everyone who didn't seem quite American enough. It turned much of the country into a spiritual nuthouse.

And now we are six years on. The two wars that sprang forth from the terrorist attacks have spiraled into strange examples of foreign policy at its nadir. As Afghanistan, primarily forgotten in many of our hearts, unravels its way into a UN-sponsored replay of the Taliban-Soviet resistance debacle of the 1980's, Iraq has become an emotional sinkhole into which we hurl men and money to no reasonable avail. Every time we find out something new about how the Department of Homeland Security actually operates, it's either disheartening, infuriating or both. Politicians, having wrung the rag of fear and terror for every drop of blood left in its fiber, now distance themselves from the buzzkill that their flag-waving fervor helped create, while simultaneously trying to be not gay and not a whoremonger and not a recipient of suspect donations from wanted felons.

There was probably an innate lack of good that could've come from the terrorist attacks in question, but whatever we might have learned, we have missed it as a nation. Our relations with the Muslim world are no better, nor are we any closer to holding them in check militarily. We are not stronger in our democracy, but rather, are flirting with the disastrous loss of the 4th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as our President and certain legislators offer passionate arguments for the circumvention of antiquated courts and other checks on power. We "support the troops," but a rather small number among us are willing to actually be the troops.

But there is still a little hope. There is a little hope, and I know that it's different for us all. I know that there are those who hope against hope that the warring in factions in Iraq will beat their AK-47s into plowshares, and that we can extricate ourselves with the feeling of a job well-done. I know that there are those who feel we are just on the verge of discovering the irrefutable proof that Dick Cheney, et al, masterminded the entire 9/11 fiasco, and that swift justice will see him dangling from the gallows by year's end. And I know that there are those—some of them, blood relatives to me—who hope and pray that each new day is bringing us closer to "once again" becoming a Christian Nation, that Zion will not be far behind, and that the Rapture will be upon us in time for half-price appetizers at Applebee's. I know. I know. I know.

But my hope is this: That whenever we gather to remember our dead, be it the some 3,000 who perished in the attacks of that day, the ever-increasing number of troops killed or maimed in our various combat endeavors, or the unknown number who have found themselves swept into the human dustbin of collateral damage, we begin to understand: It's not just about us. We are not alone in this.

In the grand scheme of human history, there is nothing unusual about it. People kill. They die. It hurts.

To mourn a loved one in their passing is normal, and intrinsic to our powers of empathy and memory. It is normal, if not to say natural. But to mourn as a nation of 300 million the passing of 3,000 is somewhat unusual, especially at the interval of six years. I'm inclined to think that our national obsession with the day is a product of both our preoccupation with media—major television networks, Fox News in particular, seem to have done everything in their power not to let us move on—and our lack of travel. Because here is the nut of the thing: It is only here, in the West, that 3,000 passing in a relatively short span of time is considered unusual.

Angola. Botswana. Cambodia. Dominican Republic. East Timor. For probably every letter of the alphabet, there is a nation whose daily suffering surpasses our imagination. But we have as yet to grasp this. Six years on, and we are still ensconced in our own pain.

But it doesn't have to be this way. In a country where so many of us have more money than we know what to do with, even as we complain about the glittery things that dangle just beyond our reach, alleviating the suffering is as easy as an online cash transfer. It's as easy as a Peace Corps application. It's as easy as a food donation.

Because if there's one thing that diminishes one's own suffering, it's the plight of another.

It is too late and too sad for the Porter children and Tina Porter. The grim story is the definition of disheartening. The Independence, MO. police department announced they had identified the remains of Sam and Lindsey Porter who had been missing for over 3 years. Their father, Dan Porter, is serving a 38 year sentence for kidnapping his children and terrorizing his wife by not informing her of their children's whereabouts. I, and I think many others, including Tina Porter, always had hope that the children would be found alive. We had hope because most of us believe that most people have enough good in them to stop them from killing children. Especially their own children. How does a person come to that moment and actually end their children's lives? That is a question for eternity.
But the bigger question I have is whether the Porter children or Tina Porter have any rights. Yes, I know that Dan Porter has rights. Geez, I've got it. But, in this age of Guantanamo, couldn't a way be found to make Dan Porter talk. Isn't there expertise that wouldn't really hurt the killer of children but would protect the rights of the victims. It appears that Dan Porter may have told authorities the location of his children's bodies because he was too afraid to be let out into the general population of the prison he is in. That was a simple. Perhaps authorities just have to understand that child kidnappers and killers are BIG cowards.
But there are many cowards in prisons. The Grissom murders in Kansas come to mind. Why should three families never get to know where their daughter's bodies are? Because Richard Grissom has the right to hold onto that info even though he is in prison for their deaths? Is he better than the prisoners in Guantanamo? Can't anyone find out what Mr. Grissom is afraid of? Perhaps info should be the get-out-of-the-electric chair card.
Now we know there was never any hope for the Porter children. But there are so many others. Could someone remind me again why nothing could be done to Dan Porter to make him talk?

I've always wondered why some millionaires take life-threatening chances, especially when the prospect of a sedate life on a cattle ranch or touring the world aboard a luxury liner, seems so much safer than death-defying feats, like climbing treacherous mountains and breaking land speed records with jet engines.

After a lifetime of hard work, it seems the sensible thing to do with all those millions, is engage in the least challenging enterprises – golf is a safe bet, bingo socials even, but certainly no thrill-seeking exploits that will leave a legacy, tainted by bickering siblings arguing over shares in your estate.

Steve Fossett, who dabbled daily with financial risks as a commodities trader, and evidently triumphed, is no stranger to walking the tightrope between life and death. His career goals it seems, have become a metaphor for a very active retirement. At the age of 63, when many people expect you to be crusty and cantankerous, be fearful of death more so than younger generations and hold up traffic, Fossett has literally been scaling new heights of human endeavor.

But there's a price to be paid and we're not talking about his fortune. Concerns about his whereabouts persist after the millionaire pilot took off from a private airstrip near Yerington, Nevada on September 3, and hasn't been seen since.

News stories speculate about his ability to have survived the harsh Nevada desert. This, after cheating death on many occasions, including a 29,000-foot plunge in a storm-damaged balloon, swimming the English Channel in shark-infested waters and competing in the Alaskan Iditarod dog sled race. Kansans might remember Fossett when he completed the first solo flight in an aircraft, from Salina around the world and back without refueling. And also as the adventurer who on his way to 116 records, circumnavigated the world in the first solo balloon flight.

This is not meant to be part of a eulogy, but in lauding Fossett's achievements, he should take the blame for his reckless abandon, in order to satiate an unquenchable appetite for the extreme. He's to be admired, yet he confounds. Now his wife Peggy and friends, fret once more, and this time it could be their last bouts of anxious over his safety.

So far, 45 aircraft and helicopters have been involved in the search, and hundreds of volunteers have given up their time to scour thousands of miles of terrain. Costs could run into millions of dollars if the rescue efforts continue for the next few weeks.

Fossett commands such attention and while there remains the prospect of finding him alive, the resources devoted to such a mission, begs the question about efforts to find other missing people, who lack his influence and financial standing.

During the search, at least six unreported aircraft wreckages have been found, with apparently no human remains. It's doubtful that they generated as much interest when the accidents occurred, but the one hopeful thing about this operation, is that at least investigations, and presumably there will be, might yield answers to the disappearance of other pilots over the years.

It will be a while before anyone eclipses Fossett's accomplishments. Maybe never. His legacy has been etched in history as someone who's always pushed the boundaries whether as a sailor, balloonist or aviator. His next mission was to break a land speed record. That achieved, he would, in all eventuality, have looked to other unaccomplished pursuits. He couldn't have done that all that without his millions. Fossett has reached dizzying heights in more ways than one, but the grim consequences of his exploits can be exacting.

It looked like an end was in sight in the so-called Format War between the high definition Blu Ray and the HD DVD disc media. Sony's Blu Ray discs are outselling HD DVD titles, making up 70 percent of HD sales for the first quarter of 2007 and hold a small majority of the HD market share with 56.2 percent. Blockbuster even announced that it would expand the rental of Blu Ray discs to 1,700 of its chain stores, while HD DVD will continue to appear in the 250 stores that originally stocked both formats.

Then Paramount announced that it, along with Dreamworks Animation would begin making titles exclusively for HD DVD starting with the Will Ferrell vehicle Blades of Glory.

From the press release: "The companies each said that the decision to distribute exclusively in the HD DVD format resulted from an extensive evaluation of current market offerings, which confirmed the clear benefits of HD DVD, particularly its market-ready technology and lower manufacturing costs."

Oh, and because both companies are receiving $150 million in cash and free marketing from the big HD DVD supporters like Toshiba, which will use Shrek the Third to spearhead a holiday marketing campaign.

Industry analysts largely view Paramount's move as a sign of desperation and it may, in fact, seal HD DVD's fate. The move has prompted Blu Ray supporters like Disney and Fox to spring into action by flooding the market with new films and, in Disney's case, launch informational booths in malls across the U.S. And there are whisperings of a Blu Ray player price drop just in time for the holiday season.

But possibly the biggest flaw in HD DVD's strategy is that Paramount's Big Gun, one Steven Spielberg, has been an adamant supporter of Blu Ray from the start. And because of this, his titles, despite being owned by Paramount, will all be available in both formats.

The most fascinating aspect of this format war is, like with most wars, there's no reason for it. The products are practically identical. Both Blu Ray and HD DVD broadcast in 1080p, the highest existing resolution. Both use the same laser wavelength to read data and both play all your old DVDs. The only difference, aside from title selection, is in laser pitch — Blu Ray uses a tighter pitch, which allows its discs to hold almost twice as much as an HD DVD disc.

Because both formats are virtually indistinguishable, what this whole mess comes down to then, is dollars and cents. Sony and Toshiba along with its respective supporters want its format to become the standard because of the big money generated through patents, licensing and manufacturing. In past format wars (VHS vs. Beta; ATRAC vs. MP3; MiniDisc vs. Compact Disc — Sony doesn't have the best track record, does it?), the consumer decided the winner through dollars spent. What Paramount and HD DVD are doing is essentially rigging the game.

Where have you gone, Jan Stenerud?

The Kansas City Chiefs were in just their fourth year of existence when you came along and paved your way to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. For more than a decade you embodied the art of being a placekicker while wearing a Chiefs uniform.

But in 1979 you (the Norwegian gift from the heavens you are) departed the Chiefs and things just haven't been the same since.
-----
From 1994 to the present, it's been one nightmare after another for the Chiefs as they've tried to find the next Jan Stenerud. The most recent wetting of the bed occurred Monday with the signing of third-year placekicker Dave Rayner to replace rookie Justin Medlock.

This certainly isn't the first time a team has signed a kicker after the start of the season. Nor is it the first time a rookie kicker hasn't panned out. However, most teams don't sign a new kicker one week into the season. And rookie kickers who get cut usually weren't drafted as high as the fifth round (like Medlock). It boggles my mind that it's been nearly 15 years since the Chiefs have had an adequate franchise kicker. It doesn't seem possible that a professional organization could have such poor judgment when it comes to evaluating talent at such an essential position.

Let's run down Kansas City's kicking woes since 1993, shall we:

1994 - Lin Elliott becomes the first kicker following the bipolar Nick Lowery era, which lasted from 1980 to 1993. Next season, Elliott spoiled KC's 13-3 regular season record by missing three field goals (35, 39 and 42 yards) in a 10-7 loss to the Indianapolis Colts. Elliott was never seen or heard from again, but his memory lives on through crude jokes like:
"Hey, did you hear Lin Elliott tried to hang himself?"
"Oh my gosh, he did?"
"Yeah, but he couldn't kick the chair out from under him."
Ba-da-ching.

1996 - Enter Pete Stoyanovich. Boy, Petey was cute, wasn't he? And he was even accurate at times (making 96.3% of his FG attempts in 1997). But he was a liability on kickoffs. It was a miracle (and usually involved a microburst) if one of Stoyanovich's kickoffs sniffed the endzone for a touchback. And, let's not forget, his missed field goal in the last game of the 1999 season cost the Chiefs a spot in the playoffs.

2000 - Why not try Todd Peterson? Well, because in two seasons his FG percentage was 76.4. Fortunately for Peterson, his two seasons with KC were just average enough that few remember him. I didn't until just now.

2002 - Enter Morten Andersen. If only the Chiefs had signed old man Andersen 10-20 years earlier. Morten was 40 years old by the time he played his first game as a Chief, yet he connected on at least 80% of his field goals in his two seasons in Kansas City. But he had the same problem Stoyanovich did. He wasn't an asset on kickoffs and his range on field goals was severely limited. His longest FG as a Chief was 50 yards (even Stoyanovich made a 54-yarder).

2004 - The wiry Scotsman from Troy, Lawrence Tynes. In three seasons with the Chiefs, Tynes' FG% never surpassed 81.8 and it was pretty clear he wasn't the long-term answer for Kansas City, which brings us to.....

2007 - NFL Draft. Day Two. 5th Round. The Chiefs could use this pick to fill a number of needs. Even with the pick of Dwayne Bowe in the first round, KC could use a receiver. Or, the Chiefs could draft an offensive lineman, a defensive back, a defensive lineman or even a quarterback. But, they decide on UCLA southpa...er...southboot Justin Medlock.

Medlock was great as a Bruin, no doubt. He made 28 of 32 field goal attempts his senior year and was probably the second best kicker in all of college football, behind Colorado kicker Mason Crosby. And, considering the unreliability of Tynes, he looked like a good choice to be the team's kicker for years to come.

So, it'd be hard to blame the Chiefs for taking Medlock after Crosby was off the board in the draft, especially if they didn't think he'd last until their pick in the sixth round. The only problem was, Crosby wasn't off the board yet when the Chiefs selected Medlock. Instead, Crosby went to the Green Bay Packers in the sixth round.

Okay, the Chiefs stretched a little for a kicker, who wasn't even the best one available. It's not the end of the world. Just so long as Medlock doesn't completely flop, they'll be justified in their choice.

Not so fast. While Crosby made 3 of 4 field goals in the preseason, Medlock - who had no competition throughout camp - struggled, making 3 of 6 attempts. And in the regular season opener, Medlock went 1-for-2, missing a 30-yarder, while Crosby shined, going 3-for-3, including a 53-yarder and the game-winning field goal.

Now, Kansas City is putting its trust in Rayner, who Crosby beat out for the kicking job in Green Bay. And there's no indication that Rayner, who made 26 of 35 field goal attempts last season, will be any different than his predecessors in Kansas City. In fact, there's no reason to expect this trend of poor kicking to end in Kansas City until the Chiefs put more emphasis on scouting and developing a franchise kicker.

Where have you gone, Jan Stenerud?