Baseball Free Agency and Gen X

Has the creation of free agency in baseball affected the employment patterns of Gen X?

If you're a doctoral student or simply a thinker, feel free to steal this idea, research it enough to respond, or lambaste me as I've been lambasted by prior posters ("You suck" comes to mind).

The definition of the supposed Generation X is still highly debated, but Wikipedia notes that the book Generations by Strauss and Howe says this generation was born between 1961 and 1981, while others define sub-genres with a prevailing set of years between 1965 and 1975. This would make the generation anywhere between 24 to 44.

Baseball free agency began with the case of Curt Flood, a St. Louis Cardinal outfielder who after being traded from St. Louis to Philadelphia after the 1969 season, pleaded his case to then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn, to become a free agent. The battle was against the Reserve Clause, which bound the player to the team he played for and gave owners tremendous power to control their employee. He lost. Then, in 1974, Catfish Hunter of the Oakland A's claimed breach of contract against owner Charles O. Finley. An arbitrator agreed with Hunter. The Reserve Clause crumbed December 23, 1975 when Andy Messersmith of the Dodgers and Dave McNally of the Expos played the 1975 season without contracts and declared themselves free agents. An independent arbitrator sided with the players, was fired, the ruling taken to a federal court, and eventually upheld. This summary was taken from a fine article by Bruce Lowitt from the St. Petersburg Tribune from 1999 titled, "Free-agency era opens in baseball".

This got me thinking about my generation.

Did baseball's free agency begin at a time when my generation was coming into its own?
Have personal salaries increased at a similar rate or scale as have ball players since free agency began?
Are workers switching jobs at a similar pace as ball players looking for more money?
Are there correlations between workers' changing jobs more frequently and the reduction in employer benefits such as pensions?
Is a transitive property effecting not only job hopping, but employer benefits? So, if employees care less = increased job hopping, and employers care less = employees care less, then increased job hopping = employers care less?

There are, of course, a lot of other factors that affect this generation. But, in terms of dates, the growth of free agency in baseball certainly falls into the date definition of Gen X.

I ask you Gen Xers out there: Conscious or not, has the rise of free agency played any role in your efforts at work or to switch jobs? Do you see yourself as a free agent? Do you believe Gen Xers running organizations are reducing benefits because they assume we think this way?

Anybody want to run with this one?

The Power to Brush

I like to have a toothbrush at work. I do this because I have an inordinate concern that I have something in my teeth. All the time. That promotes horrible breath. That makes most people avoid me. Okay, maybe not that bad.

I do have a toothbrush at work. It does help to brush after two cups of coffee and breakfast, after lunch, and after my mid-afternoon diet drink. My teeth are somewhat close together and my six month checkups have been, in the past, replete with knowing looks by my hygienist that say, "Geez, you really should be brushing and flossing more often." Maybe that's just what I feel when she's standing over me with a really sharp instrument that's been making scraping noises that make fingers on chalkboards seem like Muzak.

I keep a cheap toothbrush at work; a "travel" brush. At home I have one of those spin brushes, the kind that has the battery in it. I like it and think it works really well. Of course I say this even though I know in my heart I'm still going to get that "Oh boy! Look at what I can scrape off his teeth and draw blood!" look from my hygienist. This is the power of marketing. I believe that the spin brush I'm using makes a difference. But that's another topic.

The cheap toothbrush I have at work has marketing all over its packaging. I store my brush in this original packaging because I don't have one of those cheap little caps for the toothbrush head. And yes, I'm sure you're wondering if this cheap toothbrush is crawling with germs and impending diarrheals. I know I am.

I decided to take a glance at this packaging today. Here's what I found: "The Curved Handle and Bristles Put the Power to Brush in Your Hands". I'd like to dissect that statement and consider what it's saying to me, the consumer.

I don't doubt the curved handle, which also has nicely placed rubber-feeling material in the right places to feel secure while I'm holding the brush. So yes, curved handle. And the bristles are slightly curved in shape, though this is developed via the "short straw" maneuver of making some of the bristles physically shorter than the others. Thus, the bristles themselves are not "curved". Strike One Colgate.

The "Power to Brush". Hmm, this toothbrush is any different than any other in this way? Because it has a curved handle and "curved" bristles? The power? Wouldn't a Brillo pad do the same thing? How about a leaf just fallen from the frost-covered tree outside our bedroom window? Wouldn't any of these, and about 200 others, give me the power to brush?

Finally, I have all this power in my hands. Not just my hand. In my hands. As though I'm standing at the sink with both hands wrapped around this Wave toothbrush jerking it back and forth in my mouth, foam and toothpaste spurting onto the mirror in front of me, with the forcefulness (nee power) of a jackhammer. That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Both hands on the toothbrush?

Now, I imagine the marketing geniuses at Colgate probably felt that they could avoid a class action lawsuit by left- or right-handed brushers by saying "hands", even though they do not, in any way, identify which hand gets the power with the brush in it. But I do admit that, if this statement rings true, my left hand would be very jealous if the right hand got all the power. My left hand might refuse to help do things it's done in the past, including tie my shoes or zip my zipper or hold my daughter by the scruff of the neck (oh I hope you know I'm kidding).

I'm starting to wonder if maybe I need to start brushing with both hands. I can't afford the jealousy or the therapy right now. Maybe these Colgate marketers are on to something...

The War Over a College Football Playoff

"BCS analyst Jerry Palm said it's unlikely the Trojans or Longhorns could do what Oklahoma did in 2003 or what Nebraska pulled off in 2001, when the Cornhuskers lost their final regular-season game to Colorado and still played Miami for the BCS title.

'The formula now is so poll driven that if you lose late in the season you're pretty much dead,' he said."

That piece was pulled from ESPN.com's 11/14/05 online article regarding the new Bowl Championship Series (certainly not Collegiate, as that would imply the guys were debating) rankings that were put up today. The system used to determine which teams play in which big bowl games which determines which two teams play for the mythical national championship. This weird computer system has been in place for a few years now, and everyone seems to loathe it. "You can't trust computers," they say. "It's biased against West Coast teams," others say. "It screwed up my order and didn't give me correct change," others say. (Okay, maybe not.)

What I do follow, for the sake of enjoying listening to columnists and "experts" pontificate, is the ongoing argument that college football does not need a playoff system. A much-shortened version of this argument goes thusly: Because there are 11 games, each is important, with no letdowns. The champion will focus on winning all 11 games. This argument is particularly interesting in that some of those proponents argue that college basketball's championships is flawed because the teams can afford to lose some games and still make the NCAA Tournament.

I want to tie these things together and tell you why a college football playoff is the right thing to do:

1) Losing one game should not make you "pretty much dead": That's an incredibly stupid way of determining the best college football team in the country. If this were the way it worked in the NFL, no one would make the playoffs. The Houston Texans would not ever upset the Indianapolis Colts (they didn't, but work with me here). The best college team in the country could lose early in the season, say the 1st or 2nd game, and then run the table the rest of the way by demolishing everyone. And they'd not play for the national championship because they had a bad day? As if a team can control whether they'll "click" on any given Saturday? That's a ridiculous statement. And it doesn't make any sense.

2) Polls are subjective, and adding computers to the mix to create balance is just as ridiculous: The playoff opponents don't want playoffs because each game means so much. "You can't afford to lose," they scream. Well, that's interesting. If I'm TCU, and I win all of my games (which they didn't but again, work with me), why am I still ranked #12? The subjective aspect of human voting is going to necessitate bias, and that bias is going to allow for excuses, such as "TCU didn't play anybody. You can't say beating SMU is better than beating Alabama." No, you can't. But you also can't control which conference a team plays in, either. Just because Alabama's not in TCU's conference does not mean you can downplay their victory over SMU. Sure, SMU sucks, but so could Alabama. And who's to say that as much as SMU sucks in their conference they could not whip Alabama's foes in the SEC? A majority of polls and "expert" opinion is as swayed by reputation as anything else. Again, the non-playoff folks are scratching their heads, getting ready to scream. For more evidence of the silliness of the polls and the "need" for computers to determine the BCS check out Stewart Mandel's column for SI on the final coaches poll. The piece skewers the coaches for their bias.

3) There's too much time between the end of the regular season and the "big" bowl season: Playoff opponents begin the "They've got to study for finals!" scream here. They do? You've got to be kidding. It's really good for a football team with momentum (they've won at least 11 in a row, week after week) to take 4 1/2 weeks off between games? We're all going to get the best that team has to offer? Sure, injuries heal. That helps. But we need to talk about these games for weeks? And wait? And wait? The guys have to study? Like they've been studying all semester? This is the four weeks between when they're catching up to master Greek Mythology and Basketweaving? C'mon. We all know better. Hell, even the early bowl games in December that don't get any coverage get it over with quick. And the guys still have time to study. Geez, they get to spend Christmas at home.

4) There's too many bowl games already: The playoff opponents love the bowl season. They believe that the University of Kansas belongs in the Human Interest for Kodak's Film Processing Department at KMart Bowl against the University of Toledo on December 13 because, hell, each team won the requisite 6 games against Div I teams. Woo-wee. I'll bet the 17 alumni of each school that care are able to scalp their tickets for just about face value 10 minutes before kickoff. Please don't tell me that approximately 30 bowl games gives the rest of the country the chance to see these teams we've missed all year long. Y'know what? We don't care. We really don't. You don't need a marketing degree and an MBA to realize that the real ratings (and yes, NCAA, the common man knows you're in it for the money) come during the "big" bowl games. Let's quit pretending we're doing these bowl games for everybody. They're a joke.

5) The national championship is mythical anyway: I've never understood this. We can't have a playoff to determine a real champion because the championship is mythical. Huh? If there's no championship anyway, why not have a playoff to determine a real champion? Does this make any sense?

There you go. Because of these reasons, we need a playoff. And it should look something like this:

1) The top 16 teams, averaged by the various polls with the BCS system (because we have to use what was given to us), should play over 4 weeks the weekend following the last regular season game. This means the season ends about the same time it currently does, the first week of January. And, let's skip using the division winners to fill the seeds. If you want to keep the emphasis on winning all you can, then you won't let a 7-4 South Florida division-winning team into the tournament. You'll keep them home and let 9-2 Louisville play if they're ranked #16. I hear a lot of rumbling about this already, "WHAT? You're going to leave out a conference division champion?" Yup. If the subjective voting and BCS system says they're not in the final 16, then yes, they're out. They can still play in a bowl game (there's at least 13 others). They just won't qualify for the national championship tournament.

2) The teams are seeded similarly to college basketball, with 1 facing 16, 2 against 15, and so on.

3) The games leverage the current bowl naming system. The Rose Bowl would be the final, and championship, game. The Orange and Fiesta would be the two previous weekend bowls. I'd leave the others to fight it out over the three previous weekends. I've determined the 15 games necessary for 2006. Weekend 1 would include the Sun (in El Paso, TX), Independence (Shreveport, LA), Music City (Nashville, TN), Peach (Atlanta, GA), Meineke (Charlotte, NC), Houston (Houston, TX), Liberty (Memphis, TN), and Cotton Bowl (Dallas, TX) games. Weekend 2 would be the Fiesta (Phoenix, AZ), Capital One (Orlando, FL), Gator (Jacksonville, FL), and Outback (Tampa, FL) Bowl games. Weekend 3 would be the Orange (Miami, FL) and Sugar (Atlanta, GA this year) Bowls. And finally, the championship game would be the following weekend, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA.

4) The home team would be the higher seeded team, which over the first two weekends would go to the closest bowl physical location. For example, USC would play Georgia in the Sun Bowl in El Paso.

5) Leave the rest of the bowls alone. Except get rid of the ones that let in 6 win teams. Make 7 wins the minimum. Remaining conference and division champs fill these games. That's 26 good teams if there's enough 7 wins teams to qualify. The rest of the turgid bowl games go away. They must. Please.

Why is this better?

1) Anyone can win: Let's face it, this is what makes March Madness so good. You're saying that an 8-3 Georgia team doesn't deserve a shot at the national title if it can put a run together and beat some really good teams? Why does this eliminate the desire for a team to lose a game or two? Are playoff opponents saying that a 10-0 Texas team would really want to drop it's last game because they could afford to because their seeding was guaranteed? Are you kidding? What athlete sits around and says, "Hell, we can afford to loaf on this one. We're in." Okay, stop thinking about the NBA. Or Major League Baseball once a team has locked up its division.

2) No gap in revenue: Each weekend the games just get better and more intense. Just like NCAA basketball. Who doesn't really want Bucknell to beat Kansas? Who at least doesn't think it's a possibility? C'mon, this is why this is fun. And with the games running each week, the television ad revenue is consistent. No big gaps. And, no more prattling on ESPN for hours at a time to fill while waiting for the weeks to pass until the "big" game.

So, what would this system look like this year? Let's take a look:

Bracket 1
(1) USC
(16) UCLA

(8) Miami
(9) Auburn

(4) Ohio State
(13) Alabama

(5) Oregon
(12) LSU

Bracket 2
(2) Texas
(15) Texas Tech

(7) Georgia
(10) Virginia Tech

(3) Penn State
(14) TCU

(6) Notre Dame
(11) West Virginia

Wow. Now those would be great games for the first round. UCLA gets another crack at USC. Texas and Texas Tech get another crack and play the actual Big 12 championship game. Wouldn't TCU love to prove critics wrong? And wouldn't Penn State love to prove critics right? How about Penn State-Notre Dame in the 2nd round? Or Miami wouldn't relish a shot at USC? Here's a beautiful thing: Let's say Georgia won the whole thing. Who would rightly say they don't deserve to be national champions with two losses? They would have beaten Virginia Tech, and probably Texas, Penn State or Notre Dame and USC to finish 13-2. That's bad?

Well, it is if they were hoping to pass that Greek Mythology class during the holiday break. I wonder if one of those guys would take a National Championship over a passing grade?

Disrupting Microsoft

I've been fortunate to have an on-off email thread with one of my favorite authors, Prof. Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School. So first off, I'd like to thank him for doing so. Prof. Christensen's seminal work, "The Innovator's Dilemma", is a business theory that basically says that bringing down an industry leader takes two things: 1) industry leaders ask their customers what they want and do what they ask relatively blindly and 2) an opponent either a) comes from a slightly different direction for those customers who want or accept "good enough" or b) go at the problem from an entirely different angle, creating a different market that attracts the leader's customers and those who cannot or do not want the leader's product or service. The steel industry, the hard drive industry, and many others have followed this pattern. What makes the theory more interesting is that the leader, upon finding that they are being encroached upon, typically tries to respond by modifying their existing product or service to copy the follower but tries to sell it to their existing customer, who has no use for it. In the mean time, they cannot sell it to the follower's customer, either, because the follower sees complexity and a sense of "tacked on-edness". Thus, the leader begins the slow or steady decline into irrelevance. Think NCR and plenty of others.

Most people in technology and other pundits have seen the rise of Linux as a major disruption to Microsoft. The Linux movement is populated by highly technical people who have tried very hard to make Linux a disruptive force. Unfortunately I don't see Linux as the threat. The free software movement has seemingly come apart and splintered. There are companies involved with versions of Linux now and regular people, the folks who run Windows and want computing to be easy, don't see a viable Linux that "just works". For the technogeek out there (and you know who you are and you should be proud of that stereotype) Linux offers a wonderful world of development and opportunity. For the rest of us, as Steve Jobs might say, Linux is a complicated, overwrought world populated by people who want to jigger with the internals of a computer's working code. 98-99% of the public has no, and that's a definitive no, interest in doing this.

So what? Well, I've put together a theory about disrupting Microsoft, using the principles of the Innovator's Dilemma. Here's the question: How would Microsoft's desktop dominance be threatened? Here's the hypothesis: Microsoft's dominance could be toppled by competitors who de-emphasize the OS and its subsequent tools such as Office suites and focus on computing in the home or entertainment realm. Which company could do this? Apple.

Apple is the company most regular people really like because of one thing: the iPod. And what is the iPod? It's simple entertainment. It's the computing device for the rest of us. Anyway, without further ado, I present the email (with additions as I've added them) I just sent to Prof. Christensen for his feedback.

Clayton,

Hope all is well with you. We have not emailed since, I believe, February or so. I've been following Apple Computer very carefully and wanted to run some thoughts by you:

Apple will, in my opinion, disrupt Microsoft's desktop dominance. They are creating the classic Innovator's Dilemma by creating a new market for their products: they are no longer "competing" in the computer hardware and software OS arena, but have attacked and successfully are dominating the entertainment industry. (I believe the recent announcements by CBS and NBC are hackneyed attempts to look forward-thinking and represent weak offerings to the public because they've each taken a different approach to Apple's more elegant solution.) This back door maneuver is evident in the iPod, the Motorola-Apple ROKR phone (selling well or not), and now with the release of the new iMac G5 with Front Row, an eventual direct Media Center Edition competitor.

Microsoft, in response, has basically failed with the introduction of their WMA-based music players. Though Apple is not following the classic model of inexpensive but good enough music players (and now with "good enough" video), they could get away with this because the aesthetics of the devices more than made up for the lack of functionality, which Apple says is overdone anyway (who wants an FM tuner as well as playing music, is Jobs response). Apple excels in the simple. But for an operating system, no matter how simple OSX is, the desktop is dominated by Windows.

Seeing the move to the media center, though, Jobs and Company have decided that simplicity is the best move and gone directly for the throat. As people's homes are routinely filled with attractive Apple non-computer products, they will be constantly reminded of Apple's brand. Eventually, this could result in replacing the buggy, virus-ridden PC with, of course, an Apple machine. And this machine could be the Mac mini, which could become the perfect "component" for recording and managing video, eventually on-demand video as PVR makers such as TiVo are attempting to handle.

Microsoft, as expected, has responded poorly to these attacks. The Media Center Edition of Windows has not been as well received as hoped. Microsoft has attempted to retaliate by doing what you noted every threatened leader does: they've crammed features their users don't want into the same products and essentially made them overcomplicated and uninteresting. This is where Apple is continuing to win. The crude breakdown is Microsoft is still for geeks while Apple is for everybody else. (As an aside, this would also support why Windows is such a target for viruses and worms. Yes, 95% market share helps, but the code is a veritable mish-mash of legacy support and holes that tech geeks salivate over to find problems.) And now Apple has taken that mantra out of computing and put it directly into our entertainment centers. And by doing so, will eventually make it into our computers again.

I see Apple's newest forays into video as another toe in the water. They will release a smart phone eventually, when they've reduced OSX to something very, very simple for a phone that incorporates iTunes the right way, not the Motorola way. As well, they will continue to expand the Mac mini's role as an entertainment component and less as a computer for general use. It will "just have" the right circuitry/components to eventually wirelessly tie into a home's computer network and make it accessible from anywhere. It already does. It's just missing the Front Row software of the new iMac G5. The new iMac G5 will, as Dell and HP are doing, morph into a full-fledged HDTV-based entertainment hub/computer/television.

And let's not forget Apple's decision to move to Intel processors. This is an obvious "stake in the heart" approach to proving that computing can be simplified. The ads virtually write themselves extolling the virtues of 1) better, simpler, easier-to-use OS 2) fewer, if any, viruses 3) better incorporated system into the home entertainment products Apple's been selling for years already. If Apple can prove that the same products written for Windows, such as the stalwart Photoshop, run as fast or hopefully faster on the Intel OSX machine with fewer resources (Windows is a resource hog, resulting in a need to deck out a PC with as much RAM as possible) Apple will begin to work the mindset of both the geeks and the home users. On the geek side, expect Apple to release a developer toolset that easily bests Microsoft's Visual Studio package in terms of simplicity, speed, and power. I expect it to embrace development tools such as the current AJAX model that Google and others are using to such success. Which is why I see Apple/Google pairings in the near future. Apple is entertainment and entertainment is data/information; Google is information and searching/leveraging that information. I expect Google's influence to spread to built-in OSX tools such as Spotlight, Apple's excellent OS-based search tool, either through direct partnership or links that will allow Spotlight to leverage online search capabilities. On the personal side, I expect Apple to continue to have high profit margins but lower cost computers due to the more standard components of an Intel-based PC. Apple should approach the "too expensive" argument with fervor once the Intel-based Mac machines hit the market.

Microsoft's current Windows plans include what seem to be 20 versions of "Vista", due out in 2006 (originally due in 2003? 2004? 2005?). This plan has had plenty of ridicule heaped upon it. This plan also supports the Innovator's Dilemma leader theory of developing as many versions as possible to satisfy the current customer base while attempting to satisfy those who need "good enough". This approach will result in confused and frustrated existing as well as possible clients on all sides, including the businesses that Microsoft so desperately wants to appeal to in the small business arena. The release of the Windows and Office Live online products has been resoundingly dull. They look to be repackaging of existing MSN products with which no one was highly interested in the first place. The focus on services, and the recent release of the Gates and Ozzie emails outlining the major issues facing Microsoft, support the opinion that the company believes, at present, that the competition is beating them online again, just as they were beaten in 1995 with the Internet revolution. Microsoft curtailed that problem by hammering the competition with a free browser. In the world we're currently living in, this option will not be available to them unless they're willing to give away much more expensive assets, including the hardware on which their software will run. And this means that if Windows WMA digital rights management music players are to sell, MS will have to subsidize them to the tune of almost or fully free. And that would be very expensive. Today these WMA-based players are bit parts in an industry dominated by Apple. Microsoft does have the money to do this, but without the subsequent revenue uptick to offset these costs, their stock price will take a hit. And, there is still no promise that they can make the system hardware and software as simple as Apple, or remove the perception. It would take a massive failure of Apple for regular people to take the leap to Microsoft, and again, only if the entertainment package was almost or fully subsidized.

Gates has just issued his every 10 year missive regarding the biggest issues they face. Gates is only partially right this time because the major issue is now more complex than it was in 1995. The software as a service world is coming. But Jobs and Company may know that there is no point in focusing on that currently. What people want is entertainment where and how they want it. They don't want to write Word docs on their sofa while watching Oprah. They want TV on their phone, the laptop, or on the sofa. They want their music in the same places. Computing for computing's sake is too difficult right now. Expect Apple to move to services software near the end of their strategy. (If you want an example of where they might go, just take a look at Apple's widgets in the OSX Dashboard.) Microsoft is still focused on protecting the desktop. They believe the PC is the home entertainment hub. But their efforts to move into this realm have seen lukewarm reception, at best. Microsoft sees a PC. Apple sees an appliance, something that just works. This is not the Internet appliance of the late 90s, either. These are more like your toaster with a brain that removes the regular person from having to jerk around with an operating system. Now, no one has yet seemed to want a toaster with a brain. Bad example. Look for Apple and Google to combine efforts (or even combine) when Apple has even more power in the entertainment industry in both audio and video.

It strikes me as very ironic that Microsoft is right with this innovative idea. But Apple is going to beat them to it by coming through the back door.

The KSBoE is Brilliant

By now you've probably read on myriad news web sites and periodicals about the now-concluded battle over Intelligent Design (ID) in the state of Kansas. The debate has centered on teaching students critical thinking about the veracity of the theory of evolution by adding an interpretation of the Biblical teachings of creationism, which proponents of ID believe account for the scientific inconsistencies that evolution cannot scientifically explain.

The Kansas State Board of Education (KSBoE) voted 6-4 yesterday to approve the additional criticism of evolution via the ID theory. I say hooray. It's about time.

We have too many people from the coasts moving here anyway. Stay the hell away from us. I hear Montana's nice.

The KSBoE's decision is just one in a series of upcoming masterstrokes by the state. If you've seen the most recent edition of Business 2.0 magazine you'd know that the Kansas City metro area was selected as one of the group part of a $25 billion (or trillion, I lost count of the hyperbole while reading) USD land grab around the country. Business 2.0 believes that there are fantastic opportunities for cheap real estate in a number of mid-size metro areas over the next 25 years, or something like that. Then, the Los Angeles Times has the audacity to write an article about the outflow of Los Angeleans to areas other than Los Angeles, since they can't afford to buy a home there. Guess where the focus of the article was? That's right. Kansas City. Or rather, Lee's Summit, a very nice Missouri suburb of Kansas City. And the Times was nice enough to mention what a fantastic deal this former California couple got and the value they received for their money. Oh, and a nice picture, too. The couple and their two children looked positively idyllic in front of their 3,000 square foot home with the boat and trailer.

While this may be a boon for some of you considering a move to the midwest, your moving here is going to kill us, the hard-working midwesterners who've been keeping the prices down for years because no one, and I mean no one, wants to move here. We've got tornadoes. We've got wind all the time. We've got weather that changes from one day to the next. We've got winter, for crying out loud. And that includes snow. And ice. Scared yet? Damn.

Hold on, I've got it: We've got the Royals.

When you bring your $600,000 profit from your shanty sale in Silicon Valley, you kill the property values of those of us who already live here. We must stop this. The state knows that. We've got enough dumb people living here who don't know how to save and spend wisely. Or understand what the word "theory" means.

That's where the state got smart. That's when we got Intelligent Design.

Next thing you know, there's this huge debate about evolution and how it can't be the scientific principle to be taught to our children. Separation of church and state be damned. We're pushing this new "theory" into the schools as a challenge to something that right-wing Christians believe is antithetical to their faith. As many before have noted, this is our new world. If you challenge the evangelical belief, you are immediately wrong. And should be punished.

Or get ID.

Game theory says that the state must have carefully taken into account the global, national, and in-state humiliation ID would cause. The state is punishing residents, but has obviously done so because it's the best thing to keep those damn Coasters from bringing their money and their ideas to the state. We certainly have no interest in thinking progressively here.

Geez, Kansas is still fighting over whether to sell alcohol on Sundays. But I know that it won't be long before state Attorney General Phill Kline finds a way to get this topic into the global and national media as well when he proposes a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol period in the state. Maybe then we'll be able to keep everyone from moving or visiting as well as making residents feel as though they're living The Cannonball Run every weekend (weekday?) while driving to Missouri (or Nebraska or or Colorado or Oklahoma) to buy that gosh darned liquor.

Wouldn't that be great?

Who do I need to call about that idea? My property taxes just went up again.

What Did We Do Before the Internet?

Think about all the things you do on the Internet. All day long.

Then ask yourself this question if you're old enough to remember what life was like before this big, wonderful smorgasbord we call the 'Net: "What did we all do to screw off at work before?"

Oh, that's unfair, you say. I don't screw around at work and surf the 'Net on my employer's time.

Sure you don't.

Of course you do. As a matter of fact, there are studies by such luminaries as the Pew Charitable Trusts that say people don't feel even 1/2 bad anymore about using their employer's high speed connections to pay bills, look up movie times, email their buddies, and surf for information.

So think back about 10 or 12 years, if you were in the workforce then. Those days were amazing, as I remember them. I was programming and writing technical documentation. The 'Net at work was one of those things you looked for. You wanted to find a place that offered 'Net access. That was a cool place to work. There were still organizations that frowned on 'Net access. They thought workers would use access in funny ways or cheat the company or, God forbid, screw off.

Well, it's 2005 headed into 2006. And I can say without a personal shred of doubt that those Thomases of 1993-1995 were exactly right. If you still don't believe me, do a Google search for "wasted time" or "Internet access cutting into productive work time" and see what you get. You're going to be very surprised if you don't think people at work are screwing off with the 'Net.

Why are we doing this? Well, one of those Pew studies says that we do it because the company owes us and because "the man" already asks too much of us. So, screw you right back. I'm surfing the 'Net. Which begs another question: If I'm surfing an hour a day at work on top of the time I'm spending talking with my co-workers (not to mention the smoke breaks I'd be taking if I smoked), and took my 30 minutes to 1 hour (or more) for lunch, I'd be bitchin' too about my 11 hour day away from home that my wonderful wife would be pointing out to me.

What does all this really say? I think it says some pretty scary stuff about us: We're really, really lazy anymore. We're bored at work. We don't like what we do. If I'm at work 10 hours and subtract one hour for lunch (9), and even 20 total minutes of quick conversation with co-workers (way too little but down to 8:40), and then hack out an hour for surfing (7:40), my job's getting shorted. And so is my employer.

If we're sticking it to "the man" by surfing the 'Net at work, I can simply argue this: If you feel overworked, it might be because you're making yourself into a work martyr who's really not. Look, if you can honestly say you're working 9 to 10 or more hours on a work-related project, you can most certainly surf the 'Net to pay your bills. If you can't honestly assess your time on the premises and say you've given that required work day a full go, shut up. And get off the 'Net. And quit talking or bitching with your co-workers. By the way, that hour or so of time you're using to clog up the organization pipe to access the 'Net during the day costs money. The bigger the pipe, the more the cost. And that cuts into the bottom line of your organization. So, if you also complain about how much you get paid while surfing the 'Net an hour a day to download your latest iTunes, shut up and shut down. Get some work done if you expect a raise.

Let me make an analogy here: I just heard Mancow Muller (a relatively well-known DJ out of Chicago with an obnoxious morning show) say we really need to raise the minimum wage in this country, because it's a crime how little it is. Now, that might sound like a really good idea to you. Unfortunately, to raise the minimum wage in this country has ramifications. And one of those ramifications is that the things we all buy will get more expensive to counter the increase in wages each and every business has to pay for their increased minimum wage workers. Hell, even Wal-Mart might have to raise prices. The point? There are no free lunches. If someone gets something, someone else loses something in return.

There. Now do you understand why surfing the 'Net at work really hurts everyone in the long run?

Didn't I ask what we used to do to screw off at work before we all had access?

Take a memo, please.

Sweeney Substitutes Religion for Ego

I haven't written for a while. And for some of you who've written me, that's probably a good thing.

But Mike Sweeney has simply infuriated me. Again.

Mike, as you probably know, is the best player the Kansas City Royals have. He makes $11 million a year. And he's an egotistical hypocrite masquerading as a "Jesus freak", as he points out in a column in the October 25, 2005 Kansas City Star sports section.

Here's Mike's response when his non-Christian teammates call him a "God squader" on the way to Sunday chapel in the Royals clubhouse: "We just say, 'Hey, be there or burn.'" Not to take this out of context, but Mike followed this quote up while on a Christian-based TV station interview by noting that he didn't mean any ill will toward his non-believing teammates.

First off, I've made this clear before: Religion does not belong in the clubhouse or on the field. Mike and any other good religious person should know this. By holding "chapel" on Sunday in the clubhouse Mike is violating the personal space and belief of any other player, be they religious or not. Second, Mike assumes that Christianity is the only religion in the clubhouse by not harboring any "ill will" toward nonbelievers. Mike, did it occur to you that some of the guys might be Jewish or, God forbid, Muslim? Or anything else? Shall they all burn, too? Third, having to immediately say you mean no ill will is the sign of a guilty conscience. Of course you mean ill will, Mike. Otherwise you would never have said that. Ever. That statement is like a couple of skinny frat guys pointing out that their brother Jim is known as Jumbo because he weighs 320 pounds, but that it's simply a nickname. "He made it up himself," they cry when someone points out that Jim is only 5'4", "We're just calling him what he wants to be called."

Okay, back to Mike. Later he went on to discuss how hard it is to be a Christian in baseball. And he goes on to talk about how, in 1999, when things looked bad for him, he told God he'd been "working his butt off for you" but that his baseball career was at a crossroads that looked bleak. So, he decided to not "give a hoot about baseball or ever playing baseball again. I'll go back and sack groceries in California." But you know what? Mike didn't get sent to the minors or get traded or released. He's been to 5 All-Star games. Here's where it gets good: "From that moment on, I played for an audience of one -- Jesus Christ. I remember in spring training that year there could have been 10,000 people in the stands but I could only picture one -- Jesus Christ."

Oops. Mike just stepped into an athlete's ego substitution transferrence bucket. Mike don't play ball for himself and the money. Nope. It's all for Jesus. And he could care less what you think about his play, you baseball fans who basically pay his salary. Thus, don't expect the best on the field from Mike, 'cause Jesus takes care of his game from now on.

Sidebar of an announcer during Mike's 3rd at bat in a July game next year: "And it comes down to this folks. Sweeney at the plate, a count of 1 and 1. Two runners on, the Royals down a run. They need this game to get back in the race...Sweeney steps in. Wait, he steps out again. He signals to the umpire something I don't quite understand and refuses to return to the batter's box. Home plate umpire Tim McClelland signals again. Sweeney seems to be arguing something. And McClelland gives him the heave ho! That's right, folks, Sweeney's out of the game!"

Post-game interview with Mike: "Basically I got tossed because Jesus told me that my teammates on first and second were nonbelievers and that I couldn't get a hit to take the lead because he felt they didn't deserve the glory, Jesus's glory. So I told Tim that, and he told me to get back in the box. I told him what Jesus said again, and he tossed me. Jesus said that was the right thing to do when I got to the water cooler in the dugout. I got some high fives from the believers, too."

It gets better.

"When I was a catcher or when I'm at first base now, if the pitcher is of faith and he's kind of scuffling, I'll go talk to him and say, 'Hey, dude, what are you doing? Rely on the Holy Spirit that lives in you.'" Wow. Let's look at this.

First, Mike's saying that he actively discriminates against those not "of faith". So, if a pitcher who's not "of faith" is "scuffling", Mike's standing at first base condemning them, probably to "burn". And, he's probably wondering what it's going to take to get them converted at that moment. But God forbid (sorry, just had to say that) he'd go over and offer words of encouragement to the non-believing scuffler. Second, Mike's subjugating God in a way I've rarely seen from these hypocrites. He's saying that not only does God care about how the Royals are doing, God cares directly about the individuals on the team that are believers and Christians. But them only.

I've said before Mike Sweeney is a cancer. He is not only a cancer, but a hypocrite. And these are the worst types to have on a team. Mike, as many born again Christians do, has made sure to separate his ability to accept responsibility for failure by putting things into "God's hands". He is also saying that his faith makes it okay for him to directly ignore or condemn those who don't believe as he does, to the point where he singles out believers from nonbelievers.

Trade Mike Sweeney immediately, Mr. Baird. I don't care how many foundations he creates, the charities he gives his money to (which I'm sure are Christian-based only and working hard on converting heathens), or how sweet and kind he is during interviews. His $11 million can be far better spent on building a cohesive team. The cancer is spreading. Let's cut it out.