What Would Lloyd Say?

SHE'S BA-ACK!

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:47:00 -0800

The current Presidential primary campaign has been the most lackluster, most predictable, and most civil campaign in history. So it was refreshing last Tuesday when Sarah Palin took the stage with Donald Trump and shook things up a bit. There she was, fresh off a flight on Trump's golden jet, the airplane of the real Americans, standing before microphones and cameras, gushing as no one else can gush. Although decried by the mainstream media, the speech was brilliant.

The liberal press only saw a woman babbling at a speed that would normally indicate someone who had just done business with her dealer. But that was all an act. It was an intentional way of shining a light on the lack of progress the Obama administration has made on the war on drugs. The pundits mocked her wardrobe, but they didn't see the cleverness in choosing an outfit that could only make the electorate think of Hillary Clinton's infamous use of the words, "Tammy Wynette."

Trump is nobody's fool, either. Getting Palin to rise from the dead like this forced Bernie Sanders to cancel the endorsement announcement he had planned to make with Kato Kaelin.

Sarah and Trump are among the many people who denounce blaming the government for everything, and they urge people to take personal responsibility. So it is appropriate that she placed the responsibility for her son's domestic abuse arrest and his sadly disturbed state squarely where that personal responsibility belongs: with President Obama. Everyone has to agree that it was awful that Obama forced Palin's son to do what he did and it is disgusting that the President insisted on having that pesky little automatic weapon lying around the Palin house. But what's even worse is that somehow Obama made Sarah leave her son's side at this crucial moment of his life to rush off to begin her selfless return to the political arena. Shame on you, Mr. President.

Some of the criticism that Mr. Trump has faced involves the assertion that he is not prepared for the highest office in the land. I look forward to Sarah putting this canard to rest. She is the kind of person whose intelligence and mastery of language can get this done in one swell swoop. I can just hear her now, simultaneously defending her boy Donald while appropriately skewering the Senator from Texas: "Let's stop pussyfooting around here. Is anyone else tired of people attacking poor, defenseless Donald Trump? How is Cruz any better prepared to be Commander in Chief than Donald? The only things Cruz is famous for are jumping up and down on Oprah's couch and being in those 'Mission Impossible' movies."

Tick Tock, Zap Zap

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Sun, 17 May 2015 17:08:00 -0700

It might be a little expensive, but the new Apple Watch sure is pretty. And judging from the hype, it is the Invention of the Century. The Watch is the next logical product after the success of the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. My guess is the only reason that Apple didn't call it an "iWatch" is that they didn't want it to sound like an app for voyeurs. All of these devices have some important things in common: they look really cool, they're fun, and they're not something that anyone actually needs. The Apple Watch looks great and that's a good enough reason to buy one. But don't try convincing me that it will save you time and help you get fit.

The only way a watch is going to get you in better shape is by looking at it three times a day instead of eating. These watches won't be timesavers. People are going to spend their time staring at their watches instead of their phones. Of course, these are just my opinions. New York Times writer Farhad Manjoo seemed very excited about the Apple Watch in his review. He loves the fact that he no longer has to waste all that time, fumbling for his phone and taking it out of his pocket before checking for a "digital event." How much time does that take? Three seconds? (Of course, the New York Times is also the paper that recently devoted half a page to reporting the happy news that America is finally starting to embrace the electronic bidet).

The Watch notifies you of things by giving you little electronic taps on your wrist. Incoming phone calls and alarms "feel throbbing and insistent," and a text feels like a "gentle massage from a friendly bumblebee." Very poetic, but do you really want a massage from a bee? And when I'm out in public, I don't think I want any part of my body to "feel throbbing and insistent."

Let's face it. Most of what we do on our cell phones is not exactly essential to our lives. (Almost every day, I check the weather in Paris. I have no idea why, but it's fun). It's hard enough to resist a vibration from our phones now when we get a text, email, or notification. Are we really going to be able to ignore electronic zaps on our wrists? We're already at the point that many people sneak peeks at their phones when they're at an important business meeting. Couples even keep their phones at the ready when they're having a romantic dinner. And when that romantic couple rushes home, they won't need any mood lighting. Their cell phones emit just the right light.

There is a downside to taking your phone with you no matter where you go and what you do. Apparently, the more we turn on our phones, the less we turn on our partners. The birth rate in the United States has dropped about 7% since the advent of the cell phone in 1973. And it's happening all over the world. Japan – the home of electronic devices – is one of the nations that now have a negative birthrate. Coincidence? Who are we kidding? The cell phone may be the most effective form of birth control since the invention of the chili dog.

I'm no expert in statistics, but to me, these numbers suggest that many couples practice "phone-is interruptus." No matter how much fun the couple is having, they put on the brakes if their phone rings, buzzes, or plays their favorite song. And this behavior is only going to increase with inventions like the Apple Watch. Soon when you sneak a peek at your watch when he or she isn't looking, you won't be just checking the time. You'll be checking your texts. I'm not judging. I completely understand. After all, it's important to get that message from your friend who is sending you yet another photo of his dog.

SEX TOYS "R" US

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:29:00 -0800

We are accustomed to many children's movies making some extra box to commercial tie-ins or merchandising. So it's not surprising that just as the current "Sponge Bob" movie was released, Little SpongeBob fans began begging for all kinds of SpongeBob toys. Some of these are just silly, but I admit that others are clearly destined to become cultural icons such as a classic Pants-Droppin' SpongeBob. When it comes to regular mainstream grown-up movies, it's not all that common for them to have merchandising tie-ins. I don't think were going to see a "Boyhood" doll that will amaze everyone when it ages over the next 12 years. Yet, there is no reason for us grown-ups to despair, thanks to "50 Shades of Grey" and the release of its tie-ins (puns intended).

Since "50 Shades" involves a relationship of punishment, dominance, and pain, it is obviously fitting that the movie will be released on Valentine's Day. Forget about that bouquet of flowers this year. Now it's time to "Say It With Leather."

Not content to merely allow the audience to enjoy this romp in their neighborhood theaters, those who are behind this film are being nice enough to offer all kinds of "50 Shades" merchandise, giving people the opportunity to relive the movie's sweetest moments in the privacy of their own locked rooms with creepy lighting. That those responsible for the film are anxious to try to make as much money as possible is certainly not shocking or deplorable. What took me by surprise are the range of the products and the places where they are hawking these things.

We all remember how important Valentine's Day was to us when we were little kids. Don't worry. The "50 Shaders" have not forgotten the kiddies. There are even onesies that say, "Nine Months Ago Mommy Read 50 Shades of Grey." These darling items don't just announce to the world the mother's literary preferences, but they also hint at the circumstances under which that cute little baby was conceived.

No longer will you have to feel embarrassed sneaking into your sleazy neighborhood sex store in between the dry cleaners and the nail salon to buy some titillating toy. You don't even have to leave your house to get "50 Shades" items. You can order them from Amazon. The handcuff bracelets are a natural, and so are keychains with that special key, neckties that can be tied as tightly as you'd like, and charm bracelets with "charms" such as a blindfold and a riding crop. There is even a "50 Shades of Grey" board game, obviously ideal for rainy day family play when grandma and grandpa come to visit. At Amazon, with just a single click, you can buy the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" and your own personal good vibrations.

There are also unofficial tie-ins with "50 Shades." Surf laundry detergent actually has come up with a Limited Edition "Flirty Shades of Surf." Their customers are encouraged to try Surf's "naughtiest fragrance yet." It's amazing that in the right hands and minds, even soap can be dirty.

For people who like to take care of all their errands in one place, you can get your "50 Shades" needs met at your local Target while you do your regular shopping. In at least one Target store, some of "50 Shades'" most intimate toys were right next to the children's toothbrushes. Leave it to Target to make the shopping experience as convenient as possible for the busy mom or dad.

Target does seem to be the perfect place to do your "50 Shades" Valentine's Day shopping, with just a slight change from previous years. The store's logo is, of course, that red circular target. Traditionally, on Valentine's Day, Cupid shoots his arrow into the target which is the human heart. For this Valentine's Day, that love target is just somewhat lower than the heart.

I MISS SHAKING HANDS

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:57:00 -0700

Someday in the not-too-distant future, many of us will startle our grandchildren by telling them that once upon a time, friends would meet for lunch, shake hands, and then eat without washing those hands after the shake. They'll be amazed that in the past, some people were insulted if someone didn't want to shake hands with them. We'll shock those grandkids by telling them that there was a time when folks would go to cocktail parties, meet new people and shake their hands without secretly thinking, "How am I going to sneak off to the bathroom to wash my hands before they serve the finger food?"

There's no doubt about it. Very soon, the handshake will be a thing of the past. It will go the way of the dinosaur, the lamplighter, and customer service. I will miss it. I already do.

The Center for Disease Control says that good hand hygiene is the best way to prevent colds from spreading. I place the beginning of major handshaking avoidance with the Swine Flu Panic of 2009. That's when hands officially went from mere appendages to virulent petri dishes. That's when we were encouraged to keep our hand hygiene up to par. That's also when the handshake started to disappear.

There's some faulty logic there. Just because the best way to stop germs from spreading is by having clean hands doesn't mean that the best way to avoid germs is to avoid handshakes. No, the best way is for everybody to have clean hands. Your reluctance to shake your friends' hands before eating lunch presumes they don't wash their hands when they should. What kind of friends are you hanging out with anyway?

I came rather late to germaphobia. I had thought my neuroses plate was full, but I guess there's always room for one more. Now I'm thinking I made a mistake when I started worrying so much about the shake. I'm still not against using common sense. I don't advocate shaking hands with someone who has been sick or has been around sick people or who is bleeding profusely from the palm. However, don't you think we've taken this whole thing a little too far?

A handshake is more than a social nicety. It is actual human contact, something we experience less and less of in these digital days. It's believed that the handshake began as a way to show that a person was not carrying a weapon and wanted peace. Deals are sealed with a handshake. Someone with a good, firm handshake is thought to be a person of good character. So two questions arise. Does all of this handshake avoidance really work? Even if it does, is it worth it?

Do you know anyone who is vigilant about avoiding handshakes who gets fewer colds or flus than anyone else? I don't. Even if they get fewer colds now than before they became shakeless, it's not like they used to get 50 colds a year and now they get only five. The average adult gets between two and four colds a year. If avoiding handshaking really does reduce colds, maybe that vigilant non-shaker can eliminate one of the colds per year. Is it worth missing out on all that human contact for an entire year to maybeavoid one cold?

I'm not saying a cold is anything to sneeze at. When I get one, I go crazy. I don't understand how others can go on with their lives knowing how much I'm suffering, and I spend most of my time in bed wondering what it will be like having a cold for the rest of my days.

However, I think we're getting mixed messages from health experts. In recent years, we've been told that physical touching is important to our health, especially our mental and emotional health. Just being touched by another person can help reduce stress and depression. So do you want to be sniffle-free but depressed?

You know it's going to be a slippery slope. Today, handshakes are out, next it's hugs and kisses. After that, some medical journal will recommend that we just not touch anyone else anymore. As much as I hate colds, I have decided to try to worry less and shake more. I'm a friendly guy. Physical contact is just too important to me. It's important to everybody. I don't think there has ever been a prisoner in solitary confinement who has shouted joyfully, "I love it here! There's no chance of catching a cold from shaking hands with anybody. Please let me stay here alone forever."

This isn't going to be easy for me, either. But can't we at least try to be less hysterical when it comes to worrying about catching germs from other people? In fact, let's shake on it.

FINAL COMMENTS

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:13:00 -0700

What a great championship game! What a great Final Four! What a great prediction I made that Uconn would win based on the system that I revealed here last Friday. (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/24513222/heres-the-most-scientific-way-to-pick-a-final-four-winner)

But this column is not about my being right. Well, not completely. It's about what it was like to be in the Stadium for the games.

Except for the long shorts, everything that's great about college basketball has been great for generations. It's played by kids who sometimes are poised and sometimes make mistakes that kids make. Many fans actually know the players on the teams. Anyone who has even a remote connection with the school and team is allowed to go crazy for a little while. The cheerleaders do the same cheers they've always done in the same outfits they've always worn. The games are close. You can see the players shout with joy and cry with despair.

Unfortunately, a great many people who were at the games this weekend didn't get to see many of these things that are such an important part of college basketball. They were too far away. The place was just way too big. The AT&T Stadium (formerly Cowboy Stadium) isn't a typical basketball gym. About 79,000 people were there for each of the three games. 79,000 for a basketball game! It's not exactly Hinkle Fieldhouse. Gene Hackman would have had a hell of a time convincing his team that it's no different from their gym at home.

In other words, every single resident of Storrs, Connecticut – the home of UConn – could have brought four friends along, and they all could have fit into the Stadium. And there still would have been room for Yukon Jack's Hilltop Grill and the Storrs Museum of Puppetry.

Do you like flat screen TVs? They've got one in the Stadium that is 160 by 72 feet. If you go to Best Buy to purchase one of these, remember that the size is measured diagonally.

They sold the seats at the very top of the arena. You didn't need an usher to help you to those seats. You needed a Sherpa. What could those fans possibly see from up there? They couldn't see the dunks, the blocks, or the steals. They couldn't see the expressions on the faces of the players and coaches. Furthermore, there should be an NCAA rule that states no seats may be sold that are so far away from the court that fans can't distinguish between the cheerleaders and the players. Presidents Bush and Clinton were there, but I doubt if those with bad seats could even see them on the Giant TV. So thousands of fans missed the very things that are great about college basketball.

If they hadn't read and believed my correct prediction, (which once again, may be found at http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/24513222/heres-the-most-scientific-way-to-pick-a-final-four-winner), they might not have found out who won the game until they got home.

Before Wisconsin's semifinal (but after practicing at AT&T), Wisconsin's Frank Kaminsky said, "It's an insane venue. It kind of feels like you're outside…"

Why do they hold these games in such a cavernous place with so many awful seats? For the same reason that they charge five bucks for a bottle of water. Greed.

There's an old saying that goes, "Everything is bigger in Texas." However, it would've been much bigger of the NCAA if they had played these games in a smaller place.

Just as a postscript, one of the times that they cut to the two former Presidents on the oversized screen, I'm pretty sure I read Bush's lips asking Clinton, "Where is Lloyd sitting?" I could be wrong about that. Then again, I could be right. It's happened before.

AND THE NCAA TOURNAMENT CHAMPION IS...

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Thu, 3 Apr 2014 18:34:00 -0700

Okay, you didn't win a billion dollars. You're not alone. Not one person in the Billion Dollars Warren Buffett Quicken Loans Pick All The Winners contest won. So Warren didn't have to pay out. Finally, something worked out for that guy. I have a feeling that many statisticians and math whizzes entered the contest and lost. They had all kinds of systems, using algorithms and even understanding what algorithms are. They still lost. Why? Because they didn't feed their machines the right information.

Maybe they should have looked at a different set of statistics.

I'm going to use the "point system" of picking Monday night's winner:

It always seems like the winner's colors are either red and white or blue and white. So give Wisconsin, Kentucky, and UCONN one point each.

I hate to pick on the Gators, but deduct one point from Florida for having a coach whose son plays on the team. It gets too complicated and unpleasant to watch. (Do the words "Bob Knight" mean anything to you)? While we're at it, I'm going to deduct another point from Florida for Billy Donovan naming his son Billy Donovan. So far, Florida is at -2.

In the recruitment battle, as a demonstration of how far coaches go to get kids to play for their team, I award two points for every player who doesn't come from the United States. The University of Connecticut wins this one because of the players that it has attracted from Connecticut's close neighbors, Jamaica, Ghana, and Germany. (Nice try, Wisconsin, but Germantown doesn't count).

I have to award five points to the coach who is hated more than any other coach every year – John Calipari. They wouldn't hate him if he were a loser.

As everyone knows, sentimentality is worth 12 to 16 points in big games. It seems that everyone is excited for Wisconsin coach Bo Ryan for finally getting to the Final Four. He teared up after beating Arizona, saying the game was dedicated to his late father, Butch. I'm tempted to deduct points because of people who have names like Bo and Butch, but I can't let my emotions get in the way of science. Wisconsin gets the sentimentality bonus of five points.

Experience counts. Therefore, the "They've Done It Before" points go to Calipari and Donovan. Two each. College coaching is a killer profession, so I have to award Billy Donovan 5 big points for being the coach who looks like he's in the best shape. Donovan and Ryan tie for Haircut That Is Only Seen On Coaches, earning their teams three points. UCONN gets one point for having the shortest player in the tournament whose name is Long.

So according to these calculations, UCONN should be cutting down the net Monday night.

Unless, of course, I should have awarded points for having the most players who are 6-8, having the heaviest player in the Final Four, having the best shooting seven footer, or for a coach having a wife named Ellen.

Enjoy the games.

CARS THAT DRIVE PEOPLE

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Sat, 28 Dec 2013 17:39:00 -0800

Lately, the news has been full of stories about "automatic cars." Supposedly, these are the cars of the not so distant future. Basically, they will be able to drive themselves, freeing us humans to do other things. On the way to work, car owners will be able to make phone calls, go over the presentations that they are going to give that afternoon, send emails, or even take a nap. Actually, it doesn't sound all that different from the way some people drive today.

To me, the most amazing thing about these cars is that the predicted release date for them is not that far away. "Forbes" predicts that these cars will go on sale by the end of this decade. In other words, if you order one of these cars now, it will probably show up at your house before the cable guy you called this morning.

"Do we really need more technology and less human involvement?" Apparently, car manufactures would say, "Yes." The way these vehicles work is that you program the computer in the car to go where you want it to go and when. If you go shopping at a busy time, you could have your car drop you off at the store's front door and then go find a parking space by itself. When you're finished shopping, the car will pick you up in front of the store.

The automatic or "autonomous" car will also have some of the other new gadgets and technologies that are due soon. Volvo says that it wants to have a fleet of cars by 2020 that are impossible to crash. Some cars already beep or stop when there is an obstacle in the way. The autonomous car of the future with "anti-crash technology," will not just react to emergency situations, it will predict them.

Automatic or "driverless" technology will get rid of road rage – unless the cars will be programmed to flip off other cars. (Memo to car manufacturers: the cars flipping each other off was my idea). Soon after they are on the road, it can't be that far off when cars will make up their own "minds" about things. I know a little bit about Artificial Intelligence. I actually stayed awake during parts of the movie, "Her." So I won't be surprised if someday soon, an automatic car decides to play pranks on its owner, like switching garages with another car. On a hot, romantic summer night, one of these cars is bound to sneak off with another car down to the charging station to get a few extra jolts of electricity. They'll probably stay out till all hours of the night, and won't even call their owners to tell them that they're okay.

There will be no reason to have minimum ages for drivers. If the car can drive just as safely regardless of who is in it, why couldn't kids "drive" them, too? Preschoolers wouldn't need parents to drive the car pools. They could do it themselves. Think of how much time that would free up for parents. What a great idea, right? Well, I know it would probably be just as safe, but there's something weird about people being allowed to drive a car before they can spell "car."

Those who are excited about these vehicles point out how much safer the driving experience would be. After all, they will have eliminated the "human factor." They will be guided by computers who don't get tired, angry, or drunk. These new vehicles will be commanded by algorithms rather than emotional beings. What could possibly go wrong? It's a computer.

A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:47:00 -0700

I went to a Major League baseball game recently, and it wasn't what I was used to. Pitchers didn't try to hit batters in the head with a 90 mile per hour pitch. Fans didn't fight in the stands or pummel each other for wearing the other team's hats in front of the stadium. Players didn't play selfishly. Amazingly, all they seemed to care about was the team. Was everybody on good behavior because it was a playoff game? No. Was it a Little League game? Of course not. I said nobody fought in the stands. No, the game was in Tokyo, Japan.

The stadium was different from every Major League stadium that I've ever been to. There was absolutely no litter. Before walking into the Men's Room, I didn't feel the need for wearing surgeons' booties, latex gloves, and a gas mask.

The game was between the Yomiuri Giants and the visiting Chunichi Dragons. I had heard of the Giants, primarily because of its most famous player: Sadaharu Oh. He played Major League baseball from 1959 to 1980 and hit more home runs than any Major Leaguer in the world – 868. You can be sure that there was never an allegation that Oh used any performance enhancing drugs. He was never even accused of using too much dipping sauce with his noodles.

There is basically no street crime in Japan, and the ballpark was no different. The only theft during the game was when someone stole second base. When a woman who sat in my row got up to get something to eat, she just left her purse on her chair. Nobody blinked. Except for me.

Fans cheered wildly for their team, but nobody ever booed the opposing team. The idea of a fight breaking out among fans was as unlikely as Wrigley Field selling eel sushi. Players also had a completely different relationship with the umpires. A Dragon made a mistake, and was called "out" at first. He looked confused, so an umpire walked over to him, put his arm around him and explained the situation. In America, if an umpire ever touched a player, it would probably start a riot.

There was one big similarity between Japanese and American baseball. Beer. Beer was sold by attractive, young female vendors who walked around the stadium with a keg-like device on their backs. These young women were dressed in very short shorts. I had read in my guidebook that while cleavage was almost never seen in Japan, women's' legs were seen in public as much as ramen shops. The Japanese take the term "neckline" literally, as they do the term "shorts."

The Giants won the game 8 to 6. I walked out without getting shoved once. My shoes weren't any stickier after the game than they were before. As I headed back to the hotel, I realized that I had just seen a Major League baseball game where there was not one gratuitous crotch scratch. No spitting. Nobody in the bleachers hurled insults or batteries at the players. No drunken fans threw up on the people in front of them. And they had the nerve to call that, "baseball?"

Hooray For Guns?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:32:00 -0800

About ten days ago, a coalition of various gun enthusiast organizations announced that Saturday, January 10th would be a holiday: Gun Appreciation Day. I'm not kidding. I guess the next logical step will be Hallmark issuing a card for the occasion saying something like, "Have More Fun. Get A Gun."

This column is not a typical liberal gun-owner bashing. I'm not calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment. I'm barely going to mention that there are 300 million guns in America, making it easily the most heavily armed nation in the world. Others can discuss the fact that America has the highest homicide rate caused by gunshot than any "developed" nation. The main reason I was horrified when I heard about this new holiday was not because of my position on gun control. My dismay about Gun Appreciation Day has to do with bad taste and insensitivity.

It's only been a month since the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and some people decided it would be appropriate to have a Gun Appreciation Day. One month! How thrilled all those parents of the murdered children must be. Can you imagine someone calling for a Hurricane and Flood Appreciation Day a month after Sandy hit New Jersey? I don't think they'd get a bear hug from Governor Christie, do you? October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. How do you think it would've gone over in November for people to celebrate "the positive things about cancer?"

The NRA and other pro-gun groups wisely were silent immediately after the Sandy Hook School shootings. However, they just couldn't control themselves for more than a few days. Larry Ward, one of the organizers of their new holiday, explained the reason for getting back to vocally opposing gun control soon after the tragedy. "We had a week when it was just one side," those who want gun control. "People need to understand there's another side." After one week? Is that the length they feel the mourning period for murdered children should be?

As usual, there were declarations from some gun enthusiasts that there would have been no mass killing if only the teachers had been armed with guns. When I heard this, I thought about when I was in elementary school. I was a loudmouth kid who often got on my teachers' nerves. If they had been armed, I might never have made it to high school.

Guns are as American as apple pie. In fact, you can buy guns and apple pie at the same place. Walmart is the largest seller of firearms and ammunition in the nation. There's just a bit of inconsistency when it comes to their philosophy. Don't you think that if Walmart sold a new crib that ended up causing injuries to babies that they'd stop selling that crib immediately? However, guns and ammo are just too important to Walmart's profits for them to stop selling weapons for even a little while. On Tuesday, protestors demonstrated at a Walmart near Newtown, Connecticut, objecting to the assault weapons that Walmart sells. In response, a spokesman said the demonstrators were misinformed. Kory Lundberg said that Walmart sells assault-style weapons in less than a third of their stores. Oh, just a third. That comes to only about 1300 stores. No wonder we didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. They're all in Walmart.

Gun Appreciation Day isn't the only inappropriate response to Sandy Hook. A month to the day after the shooting, a new app from the NRA was released for use on the iPhone and iPad. It's called the "NRA: Practice Range." It allows players to shoot at targets with a variety of guns. One of these weapons is the Bushmaster AR-15, the gun used by the shooter in Newtown. But what am I complaining about? It's been a whole month since the shooting.

Bye Bye 2012

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:41:00 -0800

2012 was the year of "The Huh?" – as in "What? You've got to be kidding."

It was the year that many people thought would be the last year of the world. They based this prediction on the fact that one Mayan calendar would come to an end before the new Mayan calendar would start. "Huh?"

Movie icon and philanthropist Elizabeth Taylor passed away in 2011. It took until 2012 for the release of a television movie about her life. Since she was heralded as a fine actress and received countless awards, including two Oscars, raised millions of dollars for AIDS research, and received the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, the obvious choice to portray her in the movie was Lindsay Lohan. Huh?

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that you can be fired from a job for being "too attractive" to your boss. Huh?

Actor/writer/director Ben Affleck announced that he was not running for the Senate. Huh?

President Obama won both the popular and electoral elections. Some Republicans responded by calling the election, "A tie." Huh?

Hockey team owners, concerned that the sport has had more trouble attracting television viewers, responded by locking out the players which ensured that no fans could be excited about watching hockey. Huh?

Some countries have more mobile phones than toilets. Does this mean that they're using their smart phones to find out where the nearest bathroom is? Huh?

Mitt Romney's son Tagg recently said that his father never really had any interest in being President. Huh?

Chin lifts were the hottest form of cosmetic surgery this year. Huh?

There are still people who believe that climate change is just as silly of an idea as evolution. Huh?

Finally, the big one. Former CIA head David Petraeus, the keeper of the country's most important secrets, couldn't keep his illicit affair a secret. Obviously a great judge of character, President Obama had chosen Petraeus to command the U.S. forces in Afghanistan before picking him to head the CIA. Petraeus' affair was uncovered because his mistress, Paula Broadwell sent disturbing emails to someone she thought was too interested in Petraeus -- Jill Kelley. Broadwell is an Army intelligence officer, but in this case, "intelligence" is just a military title. Kelley, the target of the emails, as well as her husband were friends with Petraeus and his wife, Holly. Jill Kelley told another friend of hers, Frederick Humphries II about the emails, and since Humphries was an FBI agent, he turned the information over to the FBI and continuously urged them to pursue the case vigorously. He also sent shirtless photos of himself to Jill Kelley, but not to Paula Broadwell. Obviously a very social person, Jill was also friends with Four Star General John R. Allen who received cyber stalking messages from Paula Broadwell, too. Natalie Khawam, Jill Kelley's twin sister, was friends with both David Petraeus and General Allen. Earlier, Jill convinced both Petraeus and Allen to try to help her twin in a child custody case in which the judge found that Natalie had "misrepresented everything." Huh? Huh? Huh?

Here's to 2013, a year that I guarantee will have us saying, "Huh?"

Happy New Year.

Election Elation

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:02:00 -0800

I know it's been about a week, but I still feel the same elation I felt on Election Night. Not just President Obama's supporters, but every American should still feel that thrill. Why? … Because the campaign is finally over! No more speeches, no more commercials, and best of all – no more of those annoying phone calls. I also assumed that the emails would stop. Unfortunately, the day after the election, I received an email from President Obama's campaign manager. At the end of it was the word, "Donate." He's still asking for money? Does Obama plan on running for a third term?

This $2 billion dollar campaign -- that's "Billion" with a "B" -- was a nasty campaign. Based on the commercials they endorsed, neither of the candidates seemed particularly nice. After each debate and major commercial, independent groups told us how untruthful many of their statements were. I propose that for the next election, there should be an independent commission set up to evaluate each commercial. If it's found to be untruthful, the candidate who endorsed that commercial will have to pay an amount equal to what that commercial cost to his or her opponent's campaign. Good-bye untruthful commercials.

While most of us are thrilled that the campaign is over, there are those politicos who are dreamily thinking, "Only about 1,460 days until the next Presidential election." -- or right after they finish counting this election's votes in Florida. What's with Florida and elections? How hard can it be? A few high school kids with a Mac could probably have handled it.

If you were the Governor of Florida and you had more political aspirations, wouldn't you have made sure that your state at least moved into the 20^th Century on Election Day this time? In some Miami precincts, voters were still casting their ballots while Obama was making his victory speech. They must've felt great about how meaningful their votes were.

It's easy to pick on Florida – boy is it easy – but it's not the only state that is goofy at election time. Here in California, on Election Day, we don't just vote for people. As you know, we vote for laws. Lots of them. These are laws that even experts who study the issues for years have trouble deciding on and evaluating their economic impact. They deal with taxation, education, the rights of public employees, and everything else they can squeeze onto the ballot. When I first moved here years ago, I didn't get it. I asked anyone who would listen that if we decide all these issues, what do the state legislators do? Nobody could ever answer that.

I had a favorite ballot measure this year. It was the one that asked us to decide if male porn actors should be required to wear condoms while making their films. In other words, on that night we had to settle both election and erection issues.

In case you missed the big news, the measure passed. I'm happy to say that I voted on the winning side on this one. Regardless of the practicality of the proposition, I felt that if I could do a little something to possibly help save someone's life, I should. However, there was another motivation behind my vote. When I thought about how they could possibly enforce this law, I figured that before any porn movie could be released, either there would have to be a state official who watched a screening of the porn flick, or they'd have to have an official on the set of every porn movie checking to make sure there were no naked penises. "Finally," I thought, "there's going to be something for those legislators to do."

Republicans Say Women Are Great

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:54:00 -0700

If you happened to turn on the Republican convention the other night in the middle of Ann Romney's speech, you might've been surprised to hear what sounded like the wife of the Republican Presidential candidate coming out of the closet. She screamed," I love you women!" And the crowd of presumably conservative Republicans applauded! You may have concluded that the Republican Party has come a long way towards tolerance and respect for all women.

Of course, that was not the case. Her speech, an effort to court women voters, seemed like something from the "Leave It To Beaver" era. She was clearly alluding to the "wife who stays at home with the children, the husband who goes to work and is not very involved with the kids" kind of family. She told us that it's the mothers who hold the family – and the country – together. "It's the moms who always have to work a little harder, to make everything right."

What about the dads? Nobody at the convention seemed to care about fathers not being viewed as particularly necessary. To them, the important thing was to get the message out that Republicans think that women are just great.

It didn't matter to the people there that she didn't talk much about working mothers, or specifically about families in which the husband stays home and the wife goes to work. No, her comments were about what I'm sure many conservatives embrace as the "traditional" roles of men and women. Perhaps that was an accurate reflection of American families – in 1957.

This attitude is quite consistent with the Republican platform and positions on gender issues. Republicans can be against things like paying for birth control for women and legislation that would ensure equal pay in the workplace because those positions come from values from that bygone era that they want to revert to.

The convention may have avoided tropical storm Isaac, but the storm that they can't get away from is the one caused by Missouri Congressman Todd Akin. When he talked about "legitimate rape" and a woman being able to avoid getting pregnant just by "shutting down" if she wants to, even most conservative Republicans thought he went too far.

The goofy concept that women can just will themselves to avoid pregnancy is a pretty appealing theory. Not only would this render abortions unnecessary, but women wouldn't need to use birth control, either. They could just let their bodies decide if they want to get pregnant or not. And if this works for pregnancy, what about the common cold? If women just concentrated a little harder, you'd never see them sniffle again.

Akin was pressured into an apology, and he gave one. Sort of. He said, "The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold." I wonder what the proper words would have been for "legitimate rape" and a woman's body "shutting down" to avoid pregnancy.

I guess it was the wording, not his sentiments that outraged so many Republicans, because a great number of his Republican brothers and sisters share his opinions. The Vice Presidential nominee, Paul Ryan and many Republicans agree with Akin that rape does not justify abortion. They are entitled to this opinion. However, I don't understand why they think it's okay to get the government involved in making their opinion the law.

Because of the reaction to Akin and to Mitt Romney's low polling numbers among women, there has been a great effort to show the country that Republicans really do like "the ladies." However, they've also created some confusion. Since Akin's comments, Republicans have gone out of their way to say how wonderful women are. They are extraordinary human beings capable of far more things than their male counterparts. Yet, if they are so special to the point that, as Ann Romney said, "Women hold the country together," why can't they be trusted to make their own decisions about their bodies?

Hot Enough For You?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:09:00 -0700

"Hot enough for you?" Americans have used that jovial and ironic greeting for decades. Yet, for the last several years, Left Wing-nuts have been crying "Global Warming" every time the earth sets a few preposterous heat records or a couple of dozen glaciers melt. Keep in mind that those who believe in Global Warming are the same morons who believe in evolution and gravity.

They tell me that the warmest twelve-month periods in the original 48 states since 1895 have all been in the last 17 years. The warmest in 117 years was from July of 2011 to June of this year. The bleeding hearts say this is a bad thing. I see it as an opportunity. The hotter it is, the more swimming pools and air-conditioners are needed. The more that are needed, the more workers are required to build and install them. That's right. Global Warming is a job creator.

Some Lefto pointed out to me that it was hotter in Omaha last week than it was in Tehran. Omaha is a wonderful city in a great state. Those who hate America may want to compare it to the capital of Iran, but I think it's a heck of a lot better place to raise kids.

We are willing to concede that the Arctic is warming up at twice the rate of the rest of the earth, but shouldn't we be celebrating this? After all, the place needs to warm up more than anywhere else. It's freezing there.

Sadly, temperatures this summer have created an awful drought in America's farmland. The farm is the backbone of America, and some of our greatest Americans were farmers before they got regular jobs. We've figured out something that should please everybody. You know all that ice that is melting and turning into water up in the Arctic? If we just leave Mother Nature alone, that water will keep heading down until it gets where it's needed the most – to those bone dry farms. That's what I call trickle-down in action.

Usually at this point of the argument, somebody brings up the topic of polar bears. Those of us on the Right Side of the issue think polar bears are cute, too. However, they just might have to adapt to changing times. In fact, I think they are doing this already. Here's an example. The Libs say that a female polar bear recently swam nonstop for nine days before finally reaching an ice floe to rest. They see this as a tragedy. I see this as probably the greatest example of polar bear endurance swimming in history. Get out your Guinness Book.

Some say that we are out of touch with poor people. Of course, they also say that the lack of regulations and the crimes of a few bad apples in finance are responsible for more of our economic problems than greedy teachers and firefighters. Anyway, if poor and elderly people in big cities don't want to get sick or die from the extreme heat, they should use their heads. Get out of the city. All they have to do is hitch their boats to their cars and head to their beach houses.

Nowhere To Hide

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:32:00 -0700

Did you ever call in sick and then go hang out with friends? Were you ever supposed to call on clients, but decided to go to a movie instead? Did you ever "forget" to tell your boss that a business lunch has been canceled, and then go out to lunch with your spouse? If you got away with this kind of thing in the past, forget about it. Your days of tricking your boss are over.

People probably called you "paranoid" if you were someone who was positive that "they" always know where we are. Guess what? You're not paranoid anymore. "They" do know where you are. Our friends at Google have come up with a smart phone app that will allow your boss to be able to see where you are at all times. Called "Maps Coordinate," this little devil of innovation is part of a paid business version of Google's map program. An employer can just sit back and watch where his employees go and how long they stay there.

Of course, Google doesn't describe this as a way for bosses to spy on workers. They say that the purpose of the device is to help assign jobs and decide who goes where "more efficiently." Right. And social networking sites don't sell your information to other companies.

Google tested this product on government agencies. If it could be limited to government employees, I probably wouldn't think it was such a bad idea. We could finally find out where members of Congress actually go when they're supposed to be voting on an important bill or when they say they're on the Appalachian Trail.

Unfortunately, this device won't just be used to keep an eye on politicians. Pizza delivery guys were another test group. That's really going too far. What kind of country will we be living in if pizza delivery guys can't goof off on the job?

Google can talk all it wants about how this will make companies more efficient and therefore more profitable. However, that ignores the negative economic impact of this thing. For example, one economic sector that will be hit hard is the sleazy motel industry.

There's another reason to hate these eyes of Big Brother. If it can be used for business purposes, what's to stop it from being used in our personal lives? Won't boyfriends, girlfriends, and spouses be able to track people down, too?

Young people who actually understand how these things work are probably laughing at me for being concerned about a little app. Let me remind you who scoff that there is another group that will certainly want this device -- parents. Do you really want them to know where you go when you say that you can't go dinner with them because you have to go to a friend's house to study?

Ironically, it's because of these very same young people that I'm confident that this won't be a problem soon. They can make a computer jump through hoops while they watch the latest video of a baby trying to change his own diaper. So it won't be a problem at all for some smart computer whizzes to come up with programs to disable things like this Google Snoop. In the meantime, I'll just continue to write my column here in this dusty old library. Or am I at the beach? I'll bet "they" know.

It's A Search Engine, Stupid

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:43:00 -0700

You'd have to be crazy to lie on your resume’ these days. It's so easy for others to use a search engine like Google, Bing, or Yahoo! to check that resume. So who would try to sneak a lie past them? The CEO of Yahoo!

Recently, Yahoo! CEO Scott Thompson was caught with a little too much creativity on his resume’. How did he think he could get away with it? Besides, as the CEO of Yahoo!, the better he made the company, the greater were the chances his lie would be discovered. Does he arm-wrestle with himself, too?

What was that grandiose lie on Thompson's resume’? He claimed that he had gotten a degree in Computer Science from Stonehill College. Stonehill College? I'm sure that's a fine school, but is that the one you'd choose if you were going to risk your future with a lie?

Last year, authorities discovered that Yale's football coach, Tom Williams lied on his resume’. Coach Williams had said that he had been a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. It turned out that the coach had never been a Rhodes Scholar candidate, or even an applicant. What was he thinking? "There's no way anybody could possibly find out that I'm making up this little Rhodes Scholar thing?"

In a particularly odious episode, during Richard Blumenthal's 2010 campaign for Senator in Connecticut, he claimed he had served in Vietnam. This was exposed as a lie during the campaign.

Remember Michael "Way To Go Brownie" Brown, the FEMA director during Katrina? His resume’ stated that he had been a political science professor at the University of Central Oklahoma. School officials said he was never a member of the faculty. This revelation was quite disturbing, since everything else about Brown seemed so exemplary.

So why do people do this when the odds are so much against keeping their secrets secret? I'll bet most of them could still do fine without padding their resume’s. All right, forget about "Brownie" – if you can. Scott Thompson had proved he could be a successful CEO before Yahoo! Richard Blumenthal won his election even after he was caught lying about serving in Vietnam. So why do they do it?

I don't think saying they want to get caught is the whole picture. I think it's more that they want there to be the possibility of getting caught. Maybe in this sit-behind-a-desk-all-day world, this is the kind of thrill some people have found to replace the physical thrills of yesteryear. They aren't going to wrestle a grizzly bear before their morning latte, so they lie about where they went to school. They aren't going to win the one they love in a duel while waiting for the car's GPS to be fixed, so they lie about fighting in a war. They aren't going to fight off a python and save a kid's life after their wine tasting class, so they claim, well, they claim they fought off a python and saved a kid's life. For them, their bravery is tested on the battlefield of the internet. Like with most famous warriors, they know the odds are against success. That's probably what makes the fight so exciting.

I'll never be tempted to lie on a resume’ just so I can see if I can beat internet search engines. I don't need a substitute for physical bravery. For the last two years, I've been getting my rush from fighting amateur boxing matches. So far, I'm eight and two, nine and one if you count the controversial Lopez decision. Think I made that up? Well, I just can't imagine how you could check on me.

Exclusive: Republican Party Linked to Porn Biz

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Sun, 13 May 2012 13:43:00 -0700

The Republican Party has something in common with the Porn Industry: a lack of enthusiasm for condoms. During the fight for the primaries, the Condom Question came up more often than at a Senior Prom. I guess this is an important issue to the conservative wing of the party. Time and time again, Republicans have voted against programs that would give free condoms to help control sexually transmitted diseases. Now some local governments are forcing the porn industry to use condoms without any thought of the Constitution. I'm sure the G.O.P. feels that those activist judges in black robes should not be telling those active actors in black socks what to do.

Certain communities – including Los Angeles – have passed legislation that says that condoms must be used in any porn movie made in their jurisdiction. Those who make porn are outraged. They say that their profits will become flaccid. Evidently, porn watchers don't think sex scenes with condoms are a sexy as those that are condom-less.

This is an issue that must rankle Republicans. Here we go again with governmental interference and over-regulation of free enterprise. These kinds of laws will cost jobs, not create them. There are actors, writers, and dry cleaners who will suffer. Besides, why should we force people to worry about their health if they don't want to? Do we really want the "Nanny State?" (By the way, there might be a porn movie called, "The Nanny State)."

This is a perfect issue for Republicans to embrace – the natural way. I'm sure they can frame it as a religious issue, possibly pointing out that with all the "begatting," the word "condom" is not mentioned in the Bible.

This Anti-Condoms In Porn movement also would be appealing to the Republican base. There was a Harvard Business School survey that studied credit card receipts for online porn and then adjusted those results for population. That survey discovered that those states that consume the most pornography tend to be more conservative and religious than states whose residents watch less porn. Now we know what goes on at Tea Party parties.

Residents of states that have laws banning gay marriage have 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't restrict gay marriage. I wonder what passage of the Bible they twist around to rationalize that little hobby.

Adjusted for population, Utah is the biggest consumer of online pornography. Utah! Eight of the top 10 pornography-consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in the last election. The two states on the Top 10 list that went for Obama were Hawaii and Florida. We all know how important Florida is in a Presidential election, so I'm sure Republican strategists are keeping this in mind. Don't be surprised if you see Mitt Romney touring the Sunshine State and declaring that his favorite movie is, "When Harry Met Sally ... and Kimberly and Zoey."

Some people criticize Republicans for often interpreting the Constitution however it suits them. For this issue, there can be no charges of that. It is clear that those who framed the Constitution and were committed to personal freedom were thinking about cases exactly like this. In fact, I believe it was Alexander Hamilton who said that the kind of circumstance that must be protected is the situation in which a lonely housewife in a bikini doesn't have enough cash to pay the pizza delivery guy when her husband's not around. Or was it Madison?

BANG BANG, YOU'RE DRESSED

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:33:00 -0700

For those of you who are worried that the fashion industry is ignoring America's gun owners, stop worrying. According to a recent article in the New York Times, Woolrich, the long-established clothing company, is now making clothes that come with a place to hide handguns and other weapons. So the next time you're doing your holiday shopping, you might hear the customer in front of you saying, "I'd like to buy a pair of pants with cuffs, a low rise, and a gun holster waistband. And please wrap that as a Christmas gift."

Woolrich makes it clear that this clothing is not for self-styled commandos. Instead, it is for the "fashion aware gun owner." I guess that means soon there will be fashion shows with models walking down the runway wearing Glock-concealing thongs.

Several other clothing manufacturers now make clothes for people who carry concealed handguns who have been annoyed by that pesky gun bulge in traditional clothes. What's the point of carrying a concealed weapon if your clothes don't allow it to be concealed?

The sales of this kind of clothing has increased dramatically over the past few years as more and more states have allowed people to carry concealed weapons. I've never understood the point of carrying a concealed weapon for protection. If you really want to deter someone from attacking you or robbing your house, wouldn't they be more discouraged if they saw you were carrying a gun? You know, as in, "I'm not going to mess with that guy. He's got a gun." I'm sure I'll become enlightened on this when I receive explanations from those readers who carry concealed weapons. I just hope they are wearing clothes that allow them to email comfortably while carrying.

Under Armour is another company that will soon be weapons-fashionable. Under Armour is known for its athletic wear. Soon, fans will be able to wear their weapon hiding Under Armour clothes while attending high school, college, and pro sports games. This is great, because there's not enough fan violence at sporting events.

Fans? Wait a minute. Why limit weapon hiding clothes to the fans at games? How about the players? Wouldn't they be perfect for athletes who want a little extra protection? I can hear the slogan now: "Sometimes a helmet and shoulder pads just aren't enough." Crowds won't be limited to shouting, "Defense, Defense" during games. Soon they'll be crying out, "Self-defense, Self-defense."

I'm sure aggressive manufacturers will not forget another important demographic: babies. The National Rifle Association's website talks about safety and how important it is to educate young children about firearms. They even have suggestions for a school program for kids in pre-kindergarten. So if parents hide their guns in their babies' special diapers, they'll be accomplishing two things. First, they'll get their tots to feel more comfortable around guns. Secondly, they'll be prepared to ward off any violent parents who cut in front of them at Babies R' Us.

There is bound to be a bit of a transition time. So don't be surprised if you see someone turn to a cop to say, "I swear. I didn't know the diaper was loaded."

Set My People Free From ...?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:02:00 -0700

Civilization as we know it is just about to come to an end. I came across a new piece of evidence of this just last week. At the Passover Seder I attended, guests actually had the option of regular or gluten-free matzos. Let me repeat that phrase: "gluten-free matzos." For thousands of years, Jews have been able to eat regular matzos without there being a problem. I don't believe that any medical study has determined that the incidence of gluten related digestive problems spikes every Passover. However, now that it's 2012, there has to be gluten-free matzos. I guess soon we'll be reading in a new version of the Bible that Moses led his flock to the Red Sea and said, "Okay, everybody stop. If you're gluten-sensitive, remove that unleavened bread from your backs and return to slavery in Egypt. For the rest of you, have I got a surprise about what I'm going to do with this Red Sea."

In case you're wondering, yes, there was a person at the dinner who was lactose intolerant. We're used to that. On the other hand, Gluten intolerance is relatively new to us. A while back, hypoglycemia was all the rage. What happened to that? Did all the hypoglycemiacs disappear?

Don't get me wrong. I have complete compassion for people with medical problems who require a special diet. I'm thrilled that a change in diet can be a lifesaver for them. Gluten is a protein in wheat and some other grains that certain people just can't tolerate. For them, it can be very dangerous to eat foods that contain gluten.

However, in addition to those who actually suffer from dietary conditions, I have a sneaky suspicion that there are a whole bunch of people who suffer from the condition that I'll call, "Hey, maybe I have that."

So, there are two distinct groups of people. One group consists of those who have had medical tests and/or their doctors have told them that they have some food intolerance. The other group consists of people who think they have this condition because their cousin told them they do, or because they read about it in a book that was on a shelf next to a book like, "Eat Watermelon for a Month and Get Taller."

A particularly annoying feature of those in Group Two is that they talk loudly and incessantly about their alleged condition. I'm pretty sure that those who really have dietary problems don't shout about them in restaurants or monopolize the conversation by talking about them at dinner parties.

Those who would take umbrage from my saying that they might suffer from "Hey, maybe I have that," may say that if they don't really have that condition, why do they feel better on their lactose-, gluten-, or whatever-free diets? The simple answer is that they are probably eating healthier now. Maybe they've eliminated a great deal of junk or fattening foods. Even if it is based on an illusion, eating better is a good thing. I'm happy that they're getting healthier. Just stop talking about it.

I'm really tired of hearing a waiter tell me a restaurant's specials and have him say things like their cream of mushroom soup is dairy free. In addition, I certainly don't want to know what artificial ingredient (that we'll soon learn is dangerous) has replaced milk in that soup.

It's gotten completely out of control. There is actually a website called testyourintoleranceusa.com. For a mere eighty-five dollars, they will test you for 600 food and non-food intolerances. Of course, they won't test you for an intolerance to all of these intolerances.

Out-Tebowing Each Other

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:48:00 -0800

This year, like every election year, candidates are scrambling for endorsements. This time around, it doesn't seem to matter who the endorser is. They just want to have a lot of endorsements. For some of them, they seem to have more endorsements than they have votes.

My favorite endorsement story – so far – has to do with Newt Gingrich. The day before the New Hampshire primary, Newt bragged to his press conference audience that he had just gotten an important endorsement. Who was this well-regarded political personage? Todd Palin, Sarah's hubby.

This group of candidates – or as the Democrats refer to them, the "Field of Dreams" – seems willing to stab each other in the back for any possible edge. Last Saturday, there was a meeting in Texas of wealthy Christian conservatives who want to get behind one candidate to stop Romney from being nominated. They decided on Rick Santorum, not Texas' own Rick Perry. Perhaps it had something to do with Perry getting less than 1% of the votes in New Hampshire. In fact, he got .7%. .7%! Usually "other" gets more votes than that.

The big endorsement that all of the candidates are hoping for is that of Tim Tebow. So far, he hasn't picked any of them as his favorite. Tebow is the quarterback for the Denver Broncos who is probably known as much for celebrating his faith as he is for celebrating his touchdowns. He can often be seen on the field, kneeling and praying in a pose that looks somewhat like Rodin's "The Thinker." This pose has become so well known that people all over the world are "Tebowing."

In a campaign in which the candidates all have shouted out in one way or another, "I'm more religious than you are," each of them wants to be associated with this clean-living, talented, pious athlete. An organization called Poll Position did a survey and found that 43.3% of those interviewed believed that "divine intervention" was partly responsible for Tebow's success.

Mixing religion with sports always seems as strange to me as mixing religion with politics – although the Founding Fathers didn't call for the separation of church and football. Tebow did not have a good game this past Saturday, and the opposing quarterback Tom Brady set all kinds of records.

Maybe it's fortunate for the candidates that Tim hadn't chosen one of them to support before that game. What would've happened during his bad game if he had endorsed one of them? While watching on television, would the candidate with Tebow's blessing have started to panic? Every time Tebow was tackled, would he see his political life going down the drain? Would his speechwriters have come up with something like, "I was misquoted before. I never liked the bum?"

Probably not. It's too easy for the Tebow believers to say that Tebow's performance against New England was to make him even more humble. Tim Tebow is just too good to be true for the candidates to give up on him. Come on. In addition to everything else he has to offer, this 24-year-old jock is a self-proclaimed virgin.

You probably think I'm exaggerating about the importance of getting Tebow's endorsement. It's just too crazy, right? What candidate would be willing to have his political future dependent on a guy who spends much of his time trying to avoid being pummeled by a fierce bunch of 300-pounders with frozen snot on their faces? Any of them.

The Cain Mutiny

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:47:00 -0800

I miss Herman Cain. Don't get me wrong. If even one of the sexual harassment allegations is true, it's deplorable and I wish he could still be prosecuted. Adultery certainly shouldn't be a requirement for the Presidency, either. However, for sheer entertainment purposes, I miss the guy. In fact, I think there's a good chance of things being so dull that I may skip the 278th Republican debate which I think is next week.

One of the most interesting aspects of Cain's decision is that political experts feel that his support will go to Newt Gingrich. The irony here is that Gingrich has been married three times and is known to be an adulterer. I guess our political parties always have to have someone running for the Presidential nomination who has – allegedly – been engaged in these activities.

We are used to political wives standing in the background as their husbands either deny or admit sexual transgressions. Mrs. Cain took this wifely devotion to a new level. While Cain announced the "suspension" of his campaign, she didn't just stand there. She acted like a cheerleader for her hubby. She nodded, she smiled, and she applauded. Maybe Cain has bewitched, bothered, and bamboozled her. It shouldn't surprise us. Henry Kissinger once said, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." And let's face it. What could be a more powerful and sexy position in the world than President of the National Restaurant Association?

Some people have a major problem with Cain's "poor memory." The way he responded to the first allegations was to say that it was unfair to expect him to remember everything from 18 years ago. If you or I had been charged with sexual harassment, we would remember that fact whether it was 18 days or 18 years ago. Does this mean that Cain was lying about his forgetfulness? I don't think so. I think he really has a bad memory. How can we expect him to remember something like sexual harassment, when the guy can't even remember what Libya is?

The children of America are probably disappointed about his dropping out because they must have been looking forward to easy civics and history questions had Cain been elected. For example, they might have been asked on future tests:
Which of the following Presidents made his fortune in the pizza business?

A. Herman Cain
B. George Washington
C. Both of the above

What well known person is famous for saying to a female colleague that she was the same height as his wife?

A. Herman Cain
B. Mahatma Gandhi

Frankly, I was hoping that Cain was going to deny everything the way Clinton did. I was looking forward to him staring directly into the camera and saying, "I did not have inappropriate sexual behavior with all of those women who have accused me, and I definitely didn't do anything wrong with those women that nobody knows about yet."

We have to remember that American politics isn't just watched by Americans. It's watched by people all over the world. So in a situation like this, we often ask, "What does the rest of the world think of us? What does the rest of the world think of our candidates?" Well, rumor has it that when a noted German politician was asked if she thought Herman Cain would make a good President, she replied, "Nein, Nein, Nein."

Circumcision: The Outlaw Cut?

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:16:00 -0700

When Shakespeare spoke of Brutus betraying Julius Caesar, it was such an awful act that Shakespeare broke the rules of grammar when he said, "This was the most unkindest cut of all." Today, there are people who are so upset about something that they might refer to it as, "the most unkindest cut of all." These are the people who feel that circumcision should be banned.

Evidently, there are enough of these anti-circumcision folks to get an initiative on the San Francisco ballot for this November. If passed, this initiative would make it a crime for anyone to perform a circumcision on boys under the age of 18. The position of this group is that circumcision is "mutilation," and since genital mutilation of girls is forbidden, it should also be forbidden for boys. I guess this is based on the obvious medical fact that male and female bodies are identical. We've all been at the beach and heard the lifeguard yell, "Hey, this isn't a topless beach. Cover up those breasts, guys."

The other reason that they are against circumcision, especially on babies, is that they feel that the child getting the circumcision is too young to consent to it. I guess they think that since we didn't agree to it as babies, we should all be walking around with our umbilical cords dangling down.

The anti-circumcisioners refer to people who are uncircumcised as "intact." In fact, their movement is called, "Intact America." (Apparently, they don't care about people in the rest of the world living un-intact lives). Obviously, they believe that those Americans who are "intact" are more fortunate than those who are not. What about babies whose lives were saved by doctors performing surgery on them to remove lethal things from their little bodies? Should their parents have spurned the surgery in the hope that their kids could brag to everyone that they are still "intact?" I guess it would be silly of me to suggest that maybe these people are also against haircuts.

Russell Crowe, the well-known actor and I guess, part–time medical ethicist, has weighed in on this debate. He has said that he believes that God made all babies perfect and that circumcision is "barbaric and stupid." At least he's willing to debate the issue intelligently.

I've never been someone who has railed against the "Nanny State." In fact, I have always liked nannies. You'll never hear me saying anything against "Mary Poppins" or "The Sound of Music" or "The Naughty Nanny And The Pizza Delivery Guy." But having a law that tells people what they should do with their babies' private parts is just going too far. Leave it up to the parents. If anything should be a personal decision for a mother and father to make, it's this. In the past, we've heard people decry that the government should stay out of our bedrooms. I'm saying that the government should stay out of our underpants.

While doing research for this column, I learned that circumcision is the most frequently performed surgery in the United States. Living in Los Angeles, I thought Number One was the breast implant. I understand that just because it's so popular doesn't mean it's the right choice. That would be like saying since "America's Biggest Loser" is popular, it contributes the most to our culture.

Anyway, there are people on both sides of the argument who claim that their way is healthier. The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention feel that circumcision contributes to healthier men and that uncircumcised men are much more susceptible to all kinds of medical problems. On the other hand, Intact America can point to its experts who say the opposite. That's why this shouldn't be a law, but should be an informed choice that parents make. And those parents should be informed that the World Health Organization is for circumcision, and Russell Crowe is against it. See? It's not such an easy decision.

I COULD' VE BEEN DR. PHIL

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Mon, 30 May 2011 13:44:00 -0700

This might surprise you, but I was not invited to Oprah Winfrey's two-day party that celebrated her 25-year-old show ending. I'm sure I would have enjoyed hanging out with people like Aretha Franklin, Tom Cruise, and Michael Jordan. And I probably wouldn't have been able to resist telling Maria Shriver, "Eat a little something." But I wasn't there, and that's okay. It's fine with me that Oprah was praised by people for two days. Why not? She earned all that adulation.

Oprah's story is an "only in America" one. She started with nothing, and ended up one of the richest people in the world. She turned unknown writers into literary luminaries, and was responsible for several people getting their own TV shows. She had four former presidents on her stage as well as President Obama. And me.

That's right, back in 1990, an entire Oprah show was devoted to a "My Turn" column I wrote for Newsweek. I wrote that kids were playing too many video games instead of real games with actual bats and balls and mud and the occasional scraped knee. Apparently, a great number of people wrote to Newsweek lauding or decrying my article. So, Oprah decided to devote an hour to the topic and have me on the show.

I barely got to talk, as it seemed that whoever talked the loudest got to talk the most. Parents of kids who played video games 15 hours a day bellowed about how wonderful their kids' hand-eye coordination had become. Others sobbed loudly about the whole family going to support groups because of their electronic game addiction. I was the only one who didn't come with rehearsed remarks. It never occurred to me to do that. I figured I'd throw in something clever now and then. That didn't happen. Most of the time, I just sat there looking almost as uncomfortable as I felt.

Despite my poor on-camera performance, Oprah wouldn't have had that entire one-hour show without me. Don't get me wrong. It was a thrill and an honor to be on her show, but let's face it: her show really took off after I was on it, and it continued to soar for the next 21 years. Coincidence? That's possible.

I'm not the envious type, but when I see what she did for so many others who appeared on her show, I can't help thinking that she could have done a little bit for me. She didn't have to make my career skyrocket, but she could have used her magic to give it a little boost – or at least keep me employed. If she had hinted that she was going to make me a best-selling author, I might have actually finished writing that book that I've been talking about starting for years.

Look at Dr. Phil, Phil McGraw. He was an unknown psychologist who earned his BA in psychology from Midwestern State University. Have you ever heard of Midwestern State University? Do you even know what state it's the midwestern university of? And this guy gets his own TV show because of Oprah. He's so successful that he doesn't need a last name. He's just "Dr.Phil." You've made it in our culture when you're known by just your first name – like Barack or Madonna or Lady Gaga. If you say, "Lady Gaga," everybody's going to know which Lady Gaga you're talking about. Similarly, if you say, "Dr. Phil," nobody is going to think you're talking about that credit dentist at the mall.

So Oprah, if you're reading this, and I assume you are, I congratulate you on all of your success and wish you well on your new ventures. I really don't want anything big from you, but I would love you to do something for me that you did for Dr. Phil. Could you please just make sure that everybody will think of me whenever they hear someone say, "Mr. Lloyd?"

The Butler Didn't Do It

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:49:00 -0700

This was the game that millions of fans waited for an entire year to see, and yet it wasn't much of a game at all. Last year, when Butler played Duke, even though man for man Duke was probably a better team, Butler hung with them and almost won. This year, UCONN was the better team, and well, they played like it.

Butler’s shot a pathetic 18.8%. You want it to sound worse? Okay, they missed 81.2% of their shots. More than 8 out of 10! I can miss eight out ten shots, and I haven’t been practicing for four hours a day for eight months. UCONN didn’t shoot all that well, either, but at least their game didn’t make you wince.

Even she thought the game stunk.

Obviously, when you watch a big game like this and it turns out to be a dud, you’re more disappointed than if it were just a regular season game. Our expectations were too high. We were waiting and waiting for a fantastic game, and then when it didn’t come, well, it was a little depressing for all but the UCONN fans.

And if we felt bad because it was such a crummy game, imagine how the Butler players felt. For some of them, this was the last game of organized basketball they’ll ever play. I mean, how many of them are going to play in the NBA? And even for those who will still be at Butler next year, don’t count on them being in the Championship Game again. The basketball gods might give you two chances in a row, but not three.

I wonder about the impact this game will have on their lives. Actually, I wonder about the impact on the UCONN players’ lives, too. Often, we’ll hear that a night like this – playing for the National Championship – will be the biggest event in these kids’ lives. And if you perform so dismally in the most important thing in your life, that’s got to be depressing.

Of course, not every athlete holds onto his sports days as the best possible days ever. Some find other things that are fulfilling. But some don’t. And it’s no wonder. It’s doubtful any of these kids will ever hear 70,000 people cheer for them while millions more watch them on TV – unless they find a cure for some horrible disease or figure out how mattress stores make money.

Some on Connecticut may very well turn out to be those guys who are still bragging about the big game long after it’s an emotionally healthy thing to do. Whenever there’s a lull in a conversation, they’ll bring out that game DVD that they always carry with them. And what about those guys on Butler? Will they still be haunted by missing shot after shot when they’re grandfathers?

Most of us know deep down that continuing to obsess about their sports careers for the rest of their lives indicates that their personal growth stopped the night of the big game. We know that being a good person, falling in love, or becoming a parent “should be” the most important thing in one’s life, not the score of some game. It’s somewhat pathetic for someone ten or twenty years after a game to still feel it was the most important thing they were ever involved in. Those of us with families, friends, and real adult lives know what’s really important.

Despite knowing all these wise things about life, how many of us wouldn’t change places with these athletes just to play in that one game? Even with the guys on Butler.

Basketball Hangover

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:06:00 -0700

Nobody gets off Scott free after watching two amazing basketball games in one evening with only a 40-minute break in between them. To one degree or another, all of the 75,421 people who were in Reliant Stadium Saturday night and saw Butler beat VCU and UCONN’s triumph over Kentucky are suffering from a basketball hangover right now. Semifinal Saturday is always elating and deflating. It’s also draining. That’s not just from watching the ups and downs of two great basketball games. It's also from having to sit through a trombone blaring into your ear for more hours than an auditory nerve was meant to be tortured; it’s having to watch some sweaty student inside a dopey costume dancing at seemingly random times; and it’s putting up with the person next to you checking for emails. After the final whistle blows, you leave the arena, thirsty, simultaneously sweaty and chilled from the air conditioning, yet still calculating how many hours you’ll have to wait until Monday night’s game.

Those fans who watched the games at home are not immune to the hangover feeling. Watching a double header is just as draining for them. They also have to deal with things like family members who don’t care about the games and actually talk during them, the phone ringing and nobody answering it, and their TVs suddenly losing reception for ten seconds when the score is tied. They know they should conserve their strength for the Championship Game, but sometimes they’re weak. They’ll record the games, and then sneak down and watch them again after everyone else is asleep.

You want to get over the hangover so you’ll be ready to focus on the next game. I chose to go cold turkey. I knew if I even drank in one more rerun of the game, one analysis on TV, or one heated discussion about who’s going to win the next one, it would all be over for me. Sure, I thought about Saturday night’s games. I had trouble falling asleep. When I closed my eyes, I’d see Kemba Walker making that spectacular pass and Matt Howard making yet another put-back. However, I didn’t let things like that control me.

Whenever I’m in a situation like this, I know what to do. I try to stay busy, and I drink plenty of water. I spent as much time away from the hotel on Sunday as possible. I knew there were NBA games on TV, and I didn’t trust that I could resist watching them if I stayed. I went to what is perhaps the opposite of a basketball game – an art museum. By the time I got back to the hotel, the games were over. I had avoided temptation and become that much stronger for the big game ahead.

I felt really good about myself. Then after dinner, as I was walking through the lobby, I saw a bunch of people watching something on TV. It was the UCONN-Notre Dame women’s game. I knew I never should have sat down. Now I’ve got another hangover to get over – and the clock is ticking.

Killing The Clock Before The Clock Starts

lloydgarver@gmail.com (Lloyd Garver) — Sat, 2 Apr 2011 14:50:00 -0700

I’ll bet you think that writers just kill time all day, waiting for a 5:00 P.M. game. Not true. I spent most of the day watching other people kill time. It's a few hours before game time, but that hasn't stopped fans going to the arena. They aren't even allowed to go in yet, but they seem perfectly happy sitting on the grass in front of Reliant Stadium. Like everything in Texas, the stadium is big. How big? It’s slightly smaller than Rhode Island. One fact about the stadium that will probably surprise you is that it’s the only stadium with a retractable roof, and natural grass that hosts both an NFL team and the rodeo. Really? I thought the White House gym was set up like that, too. (By the way, now I’m seeing the players warm up, and they definitely are not playing on real grass).

It never seems like it’s a big sports event until I hear our national anthem. Okay, our second national anthem which is: “Who needs two? I’ve got two right here.” Well, I heard this called out many times by guys in dark glasses today, so this is officially a Big Event. There are rumors that another illegal activity takes place during the Final Four. People bet on who’s going to win, how many points are they going to win by, end even whether the two teams in the game will have a combined higher or lower score than the bookies predict. That last kind of bet is called, "under and over." I was just walking around for about an hour or so, and I have to tell you that the under and over for the temperature and humidity is about 182. If I were a betting man, I’d go for the over. This is a rare situation in which the fans who walk to the stadium might actually sweat more than the players.

As I watch Butler and VCU warm up, I can’t help wishing what so many other people have been wishing for ever since these teams made it to the semi-finals. Like most fans, I wish that it were possible for these two teams to meet in the Finals. That’s what America would like to see. That way, an underdog-ish, mid-major school would be guaranteed of beating the big guys. But Butler and VCU are on the same side of the “draw,” so one of them won’t be playing on Monday for the Championship. That dream Championship game can’t happen. Or can it? It was “impossible” for VCU to win one game, let alone be in the semifinals. It was impossible for Butler to get this far without their star from last year. So maybe something “impossible” will happen in the next couple of hours to make these two teams play for the championship. Maybe the NCAA will disqualify Kentucky and UCONN for some violation that nobody ever heard of.

Speaking of the NCAA, they always claim that they are open to suggestions and that they try to make the game better. Oh, really? Well, this year there are a couple of things that can cause so much confusion that I think the Competition Committee should consider changing the rules. First of all, three out of four of the teams have the same colors – blue and white. Isn’t that a big excessive? Is there any wonder that there are turn-overs? It also causes problems outside the stadium. Three-fourths of the people walking around town are wearing blue and white T-shirts. I have to look at their chests to see which team they’re rooting for. It’s gotten me some very dirty looks. VCU had the common sense to wear black and gold.

There’s another confusing T-shirt that people are proudly wearing. It says, “Coach Cal.” The question is, do they mean Coach Calipari or Coach Calhoun? Maybe they’re hedging their bets. Regardless, it is confusing. VCU fans wouldn’t have the same problem with their coach. How many “Coach Shakas” do you know?