After Big Brown’s win, casual fans may have wondered how he’d fare against recent Triple Crown race winners. Imagine the hype and ratings a race with Barbaro, Bernardini, Jazil, Street Sense, Curlin, Rags To Riches and Big Brown would get. It’d be awesome! Unfortunately, we’ll never see it because of those last six Triple Crown race winners, 4 are already retired, 1 is dead and 1 is Curlin, who Big Brown will almost certainly never run against because Big Brown’s bad feet won’t hold up past the Belmont.

How can people get attached to a sport when its biggest stars shine so briefly on the stage? They can’t. So instead racing tries to make stars of jockeys and trainers. It’d be like if NASCAR highlighted crew chiefs or golf focused on caddies. Owners and breeders need to look past short term profits and instead think about the long term effects of their actions on the sport. Sure, big stud fees are nice now, but they’ll collapse along with the rest of the sport eventually.

Of course, retirement is the best option for the horse. Better that than a breakdown. Imagine the 10-year old potential fan watching yesterday’s Derby and seeing poor Eight Belles lying dead on the track. Welcome to horse racing, honey!

The sport needs to do whatever is necessary to prevent injuries. Artificial surfaces are a start, but they are not the only option. Racing needs to eliminate drugs too. Drugs invite cheating (Big Brown’s trainer, for example, gets suspended just about every year for a drug violation) and they also perpetuate problems within the breed. Horses that would otherwise be nothing might be stars on (legal or illegal) drugs. These “stars” are sent to stud and pass their problems on to their offspring. Instead of breeding fast, sound and strong horses, we’re breeding too many fast and fragile animals. These poor animals break down or run in far too few races to ever make an impression with the public.

I love racing, but I’m almost through with it. Yesterday’s Kentucky Derby was a tragedy for the sport. The problem is that I don’t think they see it that way. If racing is blind to its own problems, they’re never going to get fixed.

Question 1: Is there a super horse in the race. A lot of people love Big Brown. If you're one of them, your work is done. If not, then move to number two. Personally, I don't think Big Brown has enough seasoning nor has he run fast enough.

Question 2: Are there fewer than 14 horses in the field? Nope, so it's hard to just rely on the results of recent preps.

Question 3: What's the pace going to be like? Ah, the pace. There are 3-4 horses who like the lead. That's usually enough to guarantee a quick pace and set things up for closers. With that in mind, we can narrow the potential winners to: Tale Of Ekati, Anak Nakal, Court Vision, Eight Belles, Z Fortune, Visionaire, Pyro, Colonel John, Adriano and Denis of Cork. Damn, that's a long list.

Question 4: It probably won't rain, but form on dirt, rather than synthetic surfaces is needed, which eliminates Adriano from further consideration.

Question 5: Can he (or she) go the distance. Looking at our closers, I think that Anak Nakal, Court Vision, Eight Belles, Z Fortune, Pyro and Colonel John should be able to get the Derby distance.

Question 6 is all about location, location, location. This year, it seems like the angle to take is horses coming off of synthetic California surfaces and showing good form on dirt. So, that gets us Colonel John. That also means that Z Fortune gets points for his close second to another California horse, Gayego.

Question 7 asks you to remember to take out Lukas and Baffert insurance. Given his success in the Derby, I'd lump Nick Zito into that group too. Zito trains Anak Nakal.

Question 8, finally, is all about the Derby Gods. Who has the best story? Who do the Derby Gods want to win? I suspect the Derby Gods are behind Barbaro's trainer Michael Matz this year. That means that Visionaire might have a bit of a tail wind. Likewise, I think the Derby Gods root for trainer Eoin Harty, who spent years getting his best horses taken away from him by Dubai's Maktoum family, and his horse Colonel John.

Finally, if the Derby Gods are equine, then they may just back Adriano since he's a son of A.P. Indy, who was injured on Derby morning back in 1992 and therefore didn't get to make his own run at history. A.P. Indy became a great sire, but he hasn't had a Derby winner yet. Maybe this is the year.

To me, it looks like the stars are pointing to Colonel John. But, looking at his Santa Anita Derby he looks a little one paced to me. I want a more explosive closer. So, that leads me to Z Fortune. I really like the horse that beat him in the Arkansas Derby, Gayego, but with his pedigree, outside post, and stalking style, I can't back him in the Derby. I can, however, see Z Fortune winning. Except for that name. Horses with dumb names almost never win the Derby.

So, what to do? I'm torn between Z Fortune, Gayego and Adriano. My analysis points me towards Z Fortune. My gut says Gayego and my heart says Adriano. This year, I'm going to go with my heart. Adriano for the Derby.

Jason Castro –

“Forever in Blue Jeans.” While his charms have worn on me, I must say this is a pretty good version. Nice tone, almost country and western, and mostly in key! Plus his eyes are extra sparkly, I think he’s safe this week.

“September Morn.” Boring and average.

Cook –

“I’m Alive.” Skunked on both of my song choices. Oh well. I’m not too fond of this arrangement. It’s boring and sounds like a sound that would be in a B-movie montage. Let’s hope he does better with the second song.

“All I Really Need is You.” Hmmm. Maybe it’s the scrubby beard, but I’m just not feeling DC tonight. The song kind of drags until halfway through when he hits some bitchin’ power ballad notes. He managed to bring the Diamond into the 80s, but not quite into the aughts.

Brooke –

“I’m a Believer.” Wow bad choice of key. She looks a little terrified, probably because she knows this song is not working. She’s also wearing crazy Elvis pants and trying to do an Elvis growl and lip thing. I think this could be her last night of sucking on a national stage.

“I Am I Said.” Aw, how endearing (and unprofessional), she wrote some lyrics on her hand. Pretty good for Brooke. In key and not as shrill as usual. Kudos to Neil Diamond for writing a song that could even make her sound OK.

Archuletta –

“Sweet Caroline.” Wow, this is terrible. Wack. Wussified. I’d rather hear any drunk Badgers fan sing this than David. At least they’d have soul. This sounds like the soundtrack to an 80s sitcom. Can we kick him off soon so that he can star in “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” already?

“America.” I think we all knew going in this was gonna be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. And what’s with the “Jailhouse Rock” outfit? I never thought anyone would make Richard Marx sound like a badass.

Syesha – “Hello Again.” Nice makeup and weavework this evening. Nice tone, but the song makes her sound like she’s 40. I’ll give her credits for the high notes.

“Thank the Lord for the Nighttime.” I think the backup dancers doing the Watusi were a bit unnecessary, but heck, what do I know. Good energy, but it’s a little too Broadway/churchy for me.

Best: Cook
Boot: Archuletta

At the union hall in Gary, she grew so animated in describing the plight of old-line industrial workers that she described them in language from the oft-repeated poem, attributed to the German pastor Martin Niemöller, about the victims of Nazism. “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist,” goes the version inscribed on a wall at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. After coming for the trade unionists, it continues, “they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.”

In Mrs. Clinton’s version, she intoned: “They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”

“So this is not just about steel,” she finished.

It sucks to lose your job. My former employer recently announced that there were moving headquarters out of town and sending 270 jobs with them. I feel horrible for my friends who now have to choose whether to follow the company to another city or to find another job. But you know what's worse, and, in fact, not even comparable to that - having yourself, your family, your friends, and your entire community murdered.

This kind of rhetoric is just an extension of the whole Bushitler crap we've heard for the last eight years. Bush is Hitler and his economic policies are like the Holocaust. While the people who say things like this may think they're making a clever comparison, what they're doing is actually minimizing what real evil is. If Bush is Hitler and the Holocaust is like losing your job, then Hitler and the Holocaust weren't that bad, right? To make a far more appropriate allusion, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

That said, obviously I don't remember much about Syesha except that she wore a sexy red dress and vamped around the stage. That's probably enough to keep her in another week given the boring personalities and bland singing of most of her competitors.

Jason Castro sang "Memories" exactly how Simon described it - like a poor kid forced to sing something by his parents. He was completely out of his element. While the show wants us to judge Jason because of that, I'm judging the show itself instead. Why does a show that claims to want to entertain the audience force contestants to perform songs that they know will suck? How is that entertaining?

Brooke White performed "You Must Love Me". I suspect America will respond with a hearty "Nah, not so much." Brooke screwed up the start and had to begin the song over. That, combined with desperate lyrics and crazy eyes should doom her.

I have no idea what David Archuletta sang. I'm sure it was some song about the children or rainbows or kittens or something. I'm also sure he sang it well, but wussily. Ho hum.

Carly Smithson finally found a song that suited her voice - "Jesus Christ Superstar". Carly was a little brassy and a little fabulous. Plus, I have to confess to a soft spot for the song since I fondly remember my father obnoxiously singing the chorus around the house for several years. Good times...

Finally, David Cook closed the show with my favorite showtune this side of "The Bitch of Living", Phantom's "Music of the Night". David got the emotion of the song and didn't do much to change it into a post-grunge tune. I appreciated that.

Best of the night: Carly
Should go: Brooke
Will go: Carly

George W. Bush – baseball & cheerleading
Bill Clinton – music & rugby
George H.W. Bush – baseball, soccer
Ronald Reagan – football
Jimmy Carter – basketball
Gerald Ford – football
Richard Nixon – football
Lyndon Johnson - ?
John F. Kennedy – sailing
Dwight Eisenhower – baseball, football
Harry Truman – music
FDR – rowing, tennis
Herbert Hoover – baseball, football
Calvin Coolidge - ?
Warren Harding - ?
Woodrow Wilson – cycling, golf
William Taft - ?
Teddy Roosevelt – rowing, boxing

It’d be nice if you could look at that list and make a conclusion like great Presidents learned leadership by playing team sports, but you can’t. Likewise, it’s easy to make fun of Bill Clinton as a band geek, but then you have to paint Harry Truman with that same brush. You could mock the elitism of JFK’s pursuit of sailing or FDR’s rowing, but then you’d have to include Teddy Roosevelt in your disdain.

So, I guess it’s not just about McCain, the boxer, vs. Obama, the basketball player, or Clinton, the tennis player.

On a different note, I actually had to look in one of my Reagan books to find out what sports the Gipper played. Skimming through Reagan: A Life In Letters, it struck me that perhaps that’s the kind of experience a President needs to have. The book’s editors estimate that Reagan wrote over 10,000 letters. He corresponded with all kinds of people all throughout his life. You can only live your own life and only have time to do so much, but talking to people and learning about their lives, like Reagan did, lets you learn about experiences beyond your own. I think about Barack Obama’s recent comments and it strikes me that he probably doesn’t actually know any white, rural, lower to middle class Americans. He only knows “of” them.

So maybe the key to judging future Presidential candidates isn’t in the games they played, their education or their military service. Maybe we should judge future candidates by the quality and quantity of their email correspondence and by how many Facebook friends they have!

Hillary Rodham Clinton was an attorney for 17 years, focusing on child advocacy. She also was a law professor for two years and served on several boards with a child advocacy mission. As first lady of Arkansas for 12 years, she had exposure to issues affecting state and local governments and focused on rural health and reform of the state's educational system. She also served as a board member for Wal-Mart during this time. Her eight years as first lady for the United States took her to 79 countries and put her in charge of a major health care initiative. She has been a U.S. senator for seven years and served on the following committees: Armed Services; Environment & Public Works; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, and Special Committee on Aging. Because her experiences as first lady are unique, it's hard to compare her to past presidents. She comes closest to Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy.

First, Hillary Clinton did not focus on child advocacy for 17 years. She worked at the Children's Defense Fund for less than a year, and then spent the rest of her career in corporate law. Also, she "had exposure to issues"? That's a rather vague term that I take to mean that she was married to Bill Clinton (in which case those issues weren't the only things she was exposed to - know what I'm saying?). Hillary's experience can actually be summed up like this: she was a lawyer, was married to a Governor and President and was in the Senate. By contrast, JFK was a playboy, PT boat commander and served in the House and Senate. Harry Truman served in WWI, was a county judge, a Senator and a Vice President. How do these experiences mirror those of Hillary? I don't see it - unless the sympathetic poster simply wants to compare Clinton to positive Democratic icons. (Ding! Ding!).

Not surprisingly, the author takes the same tack with Barack Obama:

Senator Barack Obama was a community organizer in Chicago for three years, a civil rights attorney for four years and taught Constitutional Law at The University of Chicago for ten years. He served eight years in the Illinois State Senate and three years in the United States Senate. In the Illinois legislature he chaired the Health and Human Services Committee and successfully passed legislation regarding death penalty reform, videotaping of interrogations, ethics, welfare reform, and health care. In the United States Senate his committee assignments include Foreign Relations; Veterans Affairs; Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Homeland Security; and Government Affairs. Like Senator Clinton, he has a long history of working in the law profession and has a legislative career giving him broad exposure to a number of foreign and domestic issues. A comparison to presidents over history shows that his experience is almost an exact match to Abraham Lincoln, who spent most of his career practicing law, with eight years in the Illinois legislature and three years in Congress.

An exact match to Lincoln, eh? While Obama was matriculating at Harvard, Lincoln's formal education lasted a whopping 18 months. Lincoln served in the Black Hawk War and ran a small store and then taught himself the law. Lincoln had a 23-year legal career in Illinois and was involved in more than 5,000 cases. Unlike Obama's focus on constitutional law, Lincoln was a major player in transportation law. Finally, while Obama sailed through to the Senate, Lincoln was involved in a famous campaign against Stephen A. Douglas. Basically, the difference between Obama and Lincoln is that Obama has had the luxury of pretty thoughts and speeches while Lincoln actually had to spend his life doing things. It's the contrast between the pragmatist and the dreamer.

Finally, as one would expect by this point, the writer finds a poor comparison for the Republican candidate:

Senator John McCain was in the U.S. Navy from 1958 to 1981, including seven years as a POW in Hanoi. Before becoming a POW in 1967, he was a pilot. After his release he briefly commanded a training squadron. From 1977 to 1981 he served as the Navy's liaison with the Senate, which was his introduction to politics. He was elected to Congress in 1982 and moved to the Senate in 1986. He has been in the Senate for the past 22 years. His committee assignments are: Armed Services, Commerce, and Indian Affairs. His career has given him a great depth of experience in military affairs, as well as issues covered by the Commerce and Indian Affairs Committees, but his breadth of experience is only to the extent needed to vote on legislation. The best comparison in experience is Gerald Ford, who had a distinguished military career and went immediately to Congress, where he remained for 24 years. (Ford, had additional experience, though as Vice President and House Minority Leader).

Like Ford, McCain is a career politician. However, it's hard to imagine that the defining experience of McCain's life is anything other than his seven years as a POW, an experience he doesn't share with Ford. Likewise, Gerald Ford's life is one filled with team experiences - he was a star athlete, a coach, a consensus builder in Congress. By contrast, McCain was a navy brat and a boxer he spent two years in solitary confinement in Vietnam. McCain's not called just a maverick because of his political stances - he's a maverick and a lone wolf because that's who he is to the core of his being. I'm not saying he'll be a better President than Ford, but I am most certainly saying that he would come into the job with a vastly different life behind him than Ford.

I get that this poster simply wants to make a case that both Clinton and Obama have "enough" experience for the Presidency. She's right. They do. What they're lacking isn't experience. It's right ideas.

Are the people wringing their hands over the lack of African-American participation in baseball likewise devising elaborate strategies to keep "overrepresented" Latinos out of the game? Are the Milwaukee Brewers trying to break it to star Ryan Braun that he can't play because teams "should" only be .35% Jewish?

Of course not. We tend to reject quotas because they violate our sense of fairness to the individual. Quota is a dirty word - and rightly so.

So what's going on? I point my finger at sportswriters. They want to be "real" reporters so when they get a chance to dig into what they see as "hard" news they take it (and make a HUGE deal of it). That's why sports news gets dominated by non-sports stories like steroid use, Tibet, contracts, Jessica Simpson and Cheatriots. That's "news". That's a story. That's where the glory is, baby.

I find this kind of thing absolutely fascinating. It’s yet another example of how immigration led to the richness of American culture, and also an example of the great regionalization of that culture.

Here in Wisconsin, we don’t have “barbeques” in the backyard. We “grill out”. And, grilling out generally means burgers and brats. “Barbeques” mean Sloppy Joes or something we get at a restaurant. On one hand, I feel like we’re missing out on an awesome cultural phenomenon, on the other hand, the rest of the country doesn’t have real brats, so we’re probably even.

I know that we have readers and contributors who are quite familiar with barbeques, so this is as good of a place as any to determine who has the best bbq.

Michael Johns – “Dream On.” What’s with the ascots? And the man vests? And the Chinos? Bad, bad fashion aside, it’s a pretty decent of a very difficult song. Nothing groundbreaking here, but he should be safe.

Syesha – “I Believe.” She’s chosen to sing a non-hit of past winner, Fantasia. She’s not a really powerful singer, so this is an odd choice. It’s OK, but she’s not taking me to church. I think this could land her in the bottom 3 this week for sure.

Jason Castro – “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.” I think this is the Sandals vacation commercial version. Needless to say, Jason’s frat-party performances have left me bored with him and firmly out of his corner. Nice vocals, but the song choice is so lame, I can’t praise him any more.

Kristy Lee Cook – “Anyway.” Well, the genius that she is, she’s chosen to sing a Martina McBride song. Martina is one of the finest country singers in the world, ever. Kristy, not. On a positive note, I like her top and hair. On a negative note, she’s still on the show and she sucks horribly.

David Cook – “Innocent.” Terrrible song choice, execution and jacket. I was hoping maybe for “More Than a Feeling” by Boston or anything recognizable as being remotely good.

Carly Smithson – “Show Must Go On.” Why people insist on ruining Queen, I’ll never know. She’s wearing a crazy Pat Benetar outfit and has a crazy look in her eyes. She also totally loses the pitch in the middle. This is awful and may send her rightly to the bottom 3 this week and hopefully home.

David Archuletta – “Through it All” Terrible and boring.

Brooke White - “You’ve Got a Friend.” It was OK.

Boot: Carly

Here are the final standings:

1. DaveTBH - 144 points
2. winner - 140 points
3. Jagged Little Bracket - 138 points
4. Unabrewer - 136
5. kahoks - 87
6. BVBigBro - 83
7. Motion Ws - 81
8. preachers - 78
9. Wow - 73
10. KVBigSis - 73
11. jsnisu - 66
12. Winters Winners - 64
13. Chris in NC (themandownthehall) - 64

My nephew Cale (winner) won my intra-family pool. Sadly, Cale, this doesn't mean that you actually won anything. Sorry.

Today's election took place by secret ballot, and delegates of the Olympic committee declined to reveal how they voted. Beijing appeared to receive broad international support beyond the developing nations where it has gained favor by building sports stadiums over the years. Sandra Baldwin, the president of the United States Olympic Committee, said she was ''O.K. with Beijing.''

''I think the Olympics should supersede politics,'' she added. ''It's the greatest peacetime event in the world.''

It was clear, however, said François Carrard, the executive director of the I.O.C., that delegates faced one overriding political issue with regard to Beijing: human rights.

''Some people say, because of serious human rights issues, 'We close the door and say no,' '' Mr. Carrard said. ''The other way is to bet on openness. Bet on the fact that in the coming seven years, openness, progress and development in many areas will be such that the situation will be improved. We are taking the bet that seven years from now we will see many changes.''

When you place a bet and you lose, you don't get to walk away. You have to pay up. And so, the rest of us are going to have to suck it up for a few weeks (or months, in the case of the torch relay) and let the Games go on. I know that many people think that boycotting just the Opening Ceremony won't cause that much harm, but I again disagree. Only a small fraction of athletes are at the Games to win. For most of the them, it's about the experience and other than competing in their specific event, I'm betting that the Opening Ceremony is their most memorable experience. Let's not ruin it for them to appease our guilt over awarding China the games in the first place.

And it's not even just about the athletes, for spectators, even those just watching on TV, the Opening Ceremony is a big deal. Nevermind NBC's doom and gloom, hyper-political coverage, the Opening Ceremony is just plain cool. We get a little taste of the culture of just about every country on Earth. It sounds cheesy, but we're part of the world. We really do come together and it really is wonderful.

It's about that, it's not about us. It's not even about China. China is just the facility. Think of it this way: Your best friend is getting married. She chooses to have her reception at a country club where you know the workers aren't treated well. You discourage her from having the reception there, but your concerns are overridden for a variety of reasons. Do you boycott the wedding? Of course not. You go and enjoy yourself and make the best of it for your friend's sake. Afterwards, you can talk trash about the accommodations all you want, but you go because your friend is more important than making a stand against the reception hall. Likewise, I genuinely believe that the Olympics are more important than sticking it to China over the same human rights violations that have been going on for years and years and years. At least for two or three weeks in August.

What do you think?

Brooke White - “Jolene.” Meh. Brooke starts off with one of Dolly’s finest and brings it into mediocrity with one octave singing and a simple strum on her acoustic. Not bad, but boring and definitely not the best cover that could have been done with this iconic song.

David Cook – “Little Sparrow.” Looks like somebody took a shower and got a haircut. Dave takes a play from the Sting when he could still sing live book with a nice falsetto. I like the arrangement and his soulful tone. I think this will keep him safe this week for sure.

Ramiele – “Do I Ever Cross Your Mind.” Finally she’s made a good song choice! At least until she totally drops the pitch in the middle. The cute outfit and nice hair should keep her safe this week.

Jason Castro – “Traveling Through.” I hate Jackson Johnson with the heat of a millions tirefires in hell. As such, I also hate wack Jack Johnson arrangements on Idol. I predict the bottom three for this lame performance.

Carly Smithson – “Here You Come Again.” Carly brings her cruise-ship stylings to the Idol stage again. This is so the wrong song for her. She should have picked “9 to 5” or “Why’d You Come in Here Looking Like That.” Tone is good, but a bit Celine Dion-y. On a positive note, her Spanx appear to be holding up well and it looks like she got herself a nice weave.

David Archuletta – “Smoky Mountain Memories.” Young Dave’s managed to pick another sappy, Star Search 3 and ¼ star performance song. He gets points for being more in key than Jason, Brooke and Ramiele, but loses points for being such a wussbag. More importantly, what the hell is Michael Kors doing in the Idol audience, other than having many fashion heart attacks.

Kristy Lee – “The Coat of Many Colors.” Very interesting styling tonight. I wish someone would go for the full-on brow wax, but that might only help her chances of getting votes. Alas, the song suits her and she is far from the worst of the night.

Syesha – “You All Know What Song She’s Singing.” What Syesha wants, Syesha gets, and I’m guessing she had some tussles with the Idol girls about who would sing this song. Good choice of doing the hybrid Dolly-Whitney version. I think it could have been a tad lower in register, but overall it was the best of the night so far, which is not saying that much.

Michael Johns - "It So Wrong, But Its So Right." Other than the ascot, he looks great. He picked a sultry number that suits his voice. It nice, bluesy and entirely in key. Best of the night by a mile.

The book, Class and Schools, explores the broader social and cultural influences behind the racial and income achievement gaps in public schools. Rothstein documents the disparities between children's out-of-school experiences, based on their family's income and education. Even by age 3, kids from nonprofessional families have a measurable deficit in vocabulary recognition - a pattern that only gets worse as they grow older, affecting public schools from kindergarten on.

Matthews, who holds one of the most important if less visible jobs influencing the quality of Madison's public schools, finds this alarming and significant. "Why don't our policy makers do something about this?" he bellows.

I find his attitude alarming and significant. If something's "wrong", government has to fix it. And, if you do right and you're successful, you may just find that the cure is way worse than the disease.

Imagine that you're a good parent. You sacrifice for your child. You change your lifestyle to not only give your kids things, but also to give them time. Your neighbor, on the other hand, doesn't do this. Your kids are on the fast track to success. But wait - your government comes along and says that not only are they going to take from you in the form of taxes, but your kids are going to have to sit through a curriculum designed to cater to the lowest common denominator.

It doesn't end there. Imagine again that you've scrimped and saved for a down payment on a home. Your neighbor, on the other hand, took advantage of an easy no-down-payment loan and bought their dream house. Now they, and many others like them, can't afford their mortgage payments. As banks start to foreclose, you naturally feel a little sorry for them, but you're also a little happy because you expect that housing prices will start to fall. Not so fast my friend. The government is going to bail out your neighbors. Again, not only are they going to use your tax money to do so, but by doing so, they're going to make it even harder for you to buy a house. Sorry!

And, since it's an election year, you're about to get a "rebate" check. Of course, if you make "too much" you might not get the full amount. Why? Well, the government wants to use some of your money to give a "rebate" check to your neighbor who doesn't even pay taxes.

Besides having some crappy neighbors, you also have a crappy government. Too often our government's, both liberals and "conservatives", idea of fixing something is to make us all equal. Government is like a glacier, turning both mountains and meadows into equally flat land.

If we're all the same, we're all going to be unremarkable. It's like the old horse racing cliché, "If they finish together then they can't all be good." There's no great virtue in being equal. I'd rather have a Secretariat or a Bill Gates than a bunch of $25,000 claimers.

In the meantime, the Wisconsin Badgers basketball team is making a run in the NCAA tournament. It made me ponder a question this morning. If you could guarantee that the Badgers would win the tourney, but the price you'd have to pay is that it'd be snowy until June, would you make the deal?

Actually, let me expand that beyond the Badgers to anyone with a team still in the tournament. Would you accept that kind of personal hardship for your team to win? Is that "one shining moment" enough to make up for 9-10 weeks more of snow?