It's Apparent We Have a Gas Issue

I had a dream not so long ago. The only thing I remember from that dream is that I passed a gas station and gas was $1.76 a gallon.

No, I'm not making that up. You know it's getting bad when you literally dream of low gas prices.

However, for most of the country, our dreams are coming true lately. The price of gas has slipped from a budget-crunching $3.00-plus a gallon down to an average of around $2.20 nationwide. There are valid reasons for this drop in prices; however, once again Democrats are trying to turn this economic positive into a negative by spreading this rumor: the prices are dropping because the election is coming up and the oil companies want you to vote Republican.

See, Democrats are quite good at spreading the "big lie", because so many of their followers don't bother to read the newspaper, or they don't read past the front page or first two paragraphs of a news story. Therefore, they can just plant the "big lie" in the head of a liberal columnist or cartoonist and then people start talking about it. Next thing you know, you're seeing letters to the editor repeating the "big lie" like it was gospel. Then, all a Democrat needs to do is come right out and say it, and bingo, he has instant support from voters. All the while, this "big lie" is just that... a lie.

As I said, there are valid reasons for this drop in gas prices. First off, the price of gas is driven by the price of oil. Gas prices were around $3.00 a gallon last summer when the price of a barrel of light, sweet crude was as high as $75 a barrel. Incidentally... who decides if oil is "light and sweet", through some sort of taste test? I'd hate to have that job... Anyway, oil prices are now settling around $56-$59 a barrel, still much higher than they were 18 months ago but worthy of a sigh of relief. This is due to the fact that the refineries damaged by Hurricane Katrina are coming back online, oil reserves are up, and the Miami Hurricanes football team packed more punch than this year's hurricane season.

Also, things are a little more stable in the Middle East than they were back in the summer, and oil speculators often run up the price of oil based on world events (which incidentally, I think should be illegal). If things were to suddenly improve in Iraq or we were able to talk Iran out of their nuclear program (both unlikely), the price of oil would probably drop farther. However, things are going well enough that OPEC met recently and chose to cut production and it didn't cause prices to jump at all. Incidentally, I would bet that most OPEC ministers couldn't care less about the political climate in our country.

Another factor is seasonal changes. People drive more during the summer because they're taking long trips and vacations, so since demand is up, the price goes up. Come fall and winter, people drive less due to the cold weather, so demand is down and gas prices drop. Economics 101. This is a course most Democrats apparently flunked back in school. This would also fly in the face of the corollary "big lie" being spread around... when the election is over, gas prices will jump back up. Not likely, unless a major world event starts oil speculators going nuts again.

However, Democrats have to politicize everything, don't ya know, so this cannot simply be a reflection of market forces. I was debating this whole situation at work the other day with a co-worker whose political bent is pretty much opposite with mine on a lot of things, and he replied, "Yes, but you're an intellectual so you get that." The point is most don't, and this is another sign that the Democrats are nothing more than the party of the ignorant.

Living in a Hurricane of Denial

Sometimes the only thing that is more shocking than an incident is the reaction to said incident. This was definitely the case in Miami this week after the University of Miami football team was part of a shocking but not all that surprising on-field brawl with Florida International University's team.

For years, Miami has seemed to live by the Al Davis code: "Just win, baby." And like the Raiders owner, that has usually meant taking in players who aren't exactly model citizens. It's meant recruiting players whose list of high school All-League awards was exceeded by their rap sheet, it's meant partying with Luther Campbell of 2 Live Crew fame, and it's meant more than a few on-field incidents. Your typical Miami game features at least 3 personal foul penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct and enough woofing to drown out a whole kennel. For a little while, it was believed that this type of behavior would go away. After all, Miami was placed on a pretty harsh NCAA probation 10 years ago and it meant a couple of lean years for the perennial national champions, which included things like a 66-13 beating at the hands of my Syracuse Orangemen in 1998.

Now under head coach Larry Coker, it's quite clear that the Hurricanes are back to their old tricks. After taking a 40-3 whupping from LSU in last year's Peach Bowl, they rumbled with some of the Tigers players in the tunnel. This season, they've already had one of their classic "stomp on the other team's logo until they come at you swinging" routines before a game at Louisville. And now, there are the events of last Saturday. If you haven't seen the practically-viral video by now, here's what happened... Miami was playing FIU, which is located in nearby Fort Lauderdale. Apparently, this means a lot of the Miami and FIU players dislike each other. After a lot of the usual woofing and rough play, a Miami player scored a touchdown, pointed at the FIU bench and then bowed to the Orange Bowl crowd. Needless to say, FIU was not happy about this, and they came after the holder on the extra point attempt. At which point, all hell broke loose.

Both benches emptied and soon national TV viewers were watching video of Miami players stomping on FIU players, and one Miami player swinging his helmet at an FIU player's head. It took 20 state troopers to break things up on the field and more to break up fights in the stands between Miami fans and FIU fans. Miami TV analyst Lamar Thomas (an ex-'Cane) actually enjoyed what he was watching, saying, "Now, that's what I'm talking about... I was about to go down the elevator to get into that thing." On LIVE TV!

At this point, the referees could have set the proper example that this would not be tolerated by declaring the game a Miami forfeit. Instead, they played on, Miami finished off its 35-0 drubbing of FIU, and the Miami players pooh-poohed everything after the game like nothing happened. Miami quarterback Kyle Wright said, "It's something they started, and our guys finished it. They're going home with a 35-0 loss and they're 0-7." Right, cuz winning the game is more important than assault and battery.

As for Coach Coker, the "guardian of the program"? He said, "This won't be a big negative on the University of Miami, I'll put it that way."

No, of course it's not a "big negative"; it's TYPICAL. However, that's not the end of it. ACC president John Swofford handed down the following punishment for 13 Miami players: a ONE-GAME SUSPENSION. Anthony Reddick (the helmet swinger) was later suspended "indefinitely" by the university. Monday morning, UM president Donna Shalala (a former Clinton Cabinet member) met with the trustees and decided to hand down the following punishment against Coker: NOTHING. Then, she told the media, "We will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation." She then insisted that she doesn't think the football program is out of control.

Nice job, Ms. Shalala... way to continue that Clinton administration tradition of not taking responsibility for the actions of those under your command. She even shook her fist for emphasis; I'm surprised she didn't wag her finger too.

FIU did things correctly. In all, 18 players were punished. Two were dismissed from the team, the rest were placed on athletic probation for the rest of the year and they have to attend anger management. And this is the team that got stomped ON; they had the helmet swung at THEM.

What should have been done? Simple. First off, forfeit the game. Secondly, Coker fired. Immediately. Third, all 13 players dismissed from the team. Instead, Miami put in a policy that will throw the book at players next time. Unless, of course, they don't. If the school will not take the proper measures to control its sports programs, then the NCAA has to get involved. I think it's time for the NCAA to investigate the Miami football program again. This is not one isolated incident. This is the latest in a string of deplorable behavior. The phrase "lack of institutional control" certainly applies here, and wherever the NCAA has seen that at the past, they have punished universities severely. We do need to set examples for younger players, and the time for the NCAA to put its foot down is now.

The Ultimate No-Win Situation

And so, it's happened. North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. And the world is united as one to proclaim that a madman cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons and this will not be tolerated.

No, wait... I should say the world is united with the exception of Iran and the Democratic Party... who both proclaim that this is all President Bush's fault.

It's been a non-stop parade since the test was conducted two days ago, and there is one common thread amongst all the statements and columns by the Democrats and their liberal columnist buddies: none of them have said what they would have done differently.

Just to recap, here's how this whole mess developed... in 1994, Kim Jong Il came to power in North Korea. He immediately made it clear that he wanted to develop nuclear weapons. The Clinton administration worked out a deal where North Korea would receive certain "incentives" and in return, North Korea would play nice and give up its nuclear weapons program. Except they didn't. In 2002, North Korea came out of nowhere and announced to the world that they duped us. Not only had they NOT given up their nuclear program as promised, but they were close to their goal of developing a nuclear warhead, thanks in part to one of Pakistan's top nuclear scientists who gave Kim Jong Il everything he needed to make one.

President Bush announced that this would not be tolerated... and for that, he was immediately derided by columnists and cartoonists everywhere. They proclaimed that this was just another example of Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" and that he was going to send us to war in North Korea, one that would probably end with U.S. soldiers dying in a mushroom cloud. The North Koreans played along and said that they were building nuclear weapons because they knew we would attack them. So with the world already hysterical over our looming invasion of Iraq, we backed off and said we would negotiate with North Korea.

And where has that gotten us? In four years, North Korea showed up at a few meetings with us, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia to talk about "denuclearization" of the Korean peninsula. The meetings usually went something like this: the KCNA (North Korean news agency) would make a threat the day before the talks began, the 6 nations would talk productively, everyone (North Korea included) would leave saying progress had been made... then a week later the KCNA would say nothing was accomplished and they didn't want to talk anymore. North Korea wanted bilateral talks... just us and them. We refuse because we know what will happen... they will demand we give them everything they want, we will refuse it as unreasonable, and they will go to the world media and proclaim that this is more proof that we just want to attack them. And the world will believe them. So there's been a lot of "talk" and nothing has happened... except North Korea continued working on their nuclear weapons.

So now they have nukes... and it's OUR fault? If it's our fault, it's because we listened to these liberals who continue to preach that talking to your enemies and trying to understand them is the only way to resolve conflict. The real question is what do we do now? Well, for once, all the major world powers have agreed that North Korea must be punished. They are preparing to vote on further sanctions, which has drawn the predictable response from North Korea. They have said any sanctions passed would be "a declaration of war" and would be responded to as such. This worked last time when we wanted sanctions passed after they test-fired missiles aimed at Japan a couple months back. North Korea said sanctions would be an act of war, and China and Russia forced us to back off.

I really don't know what we can do about this. We obviously cannot tolerate a wackjob like Kim Jong Il having nukes, especially when we have plenty of troops and plenty of allies within his striking range. What's more, he's shown he's willing to sell these weapons to anyone... which makes me believe that the first two calls he got after the nuclear test were from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the president of Iran, both saying congratulations and "when do we get our bombs?" But it's clear that North Korea will not accept punishment and will not talk. Eventually something will have to be done, and it probably won't be pretty. Therefore, no matter what does get done, you can bet that the Democrats will criticize it, as they love to be on all sides of an issue, even ones that contradict each other, as long as it's opposing the president.

I'm Sick of Waiting

In past years, I gave what I called a "State of the Tube Address" to give my take on the new fall season. Actually, I did one in 2000 and 2001; for some reason I didn't in 2002. Anyway, I figured it was about time for me to start this tradition again... only the networks haven't been too cooperative. They've broken with tradition and instead of rolling out all the new shows at once, they're doing it a few at a time, mostly so they can repeat the pilots to give them a chance to find their audiences. Also, they're shifting shows from one night to another at warp speed. One the one hand, I have no problem with this; at least they're not throwing a show out there and dumping it in two weeks. On the other hand, it's taking forever for everything to debut, and now ABC has gone so far as to push one of its highly anticipated new fall shows, "The Lords of Prosperity" to January because they figured by the time they finally debut it, people's viewing patterns will be set and the show won't have a chance. This could have been solved, of course, by debuting it IN SEPTEMBER. However, that of course would mean no time slot for "Dancing With the Stars", and we can't have that, right?

In case you can't tell, I HATE reality TV. "The Biggest Loser"? "Celebrity Duets"? "America's Next Top Model"? No thanks, not for me. It is rather telling, though, that the only show I mentioned in my last "State of the Tube Address" 5 years ago that is still on the air is "Survivor". Usually because the shows I like get canceled. Oh well. So without further ado, and based on the limited slate of shows that have kicked off their new seasons, here's my 2006 look at what to watch...

First it should be noted, the choice of networks isn't quite the same this year. Last year, the WB and CBS (owner of UPN, the United Pathetic Network) decided to merge operations with the hopes of actually being competitive in the ratings. For the most part, this means that the best WB shows and the few decent UPN shows were carried over to the new CW network.

We start with Sunday nights, which means the Fox lineup, starting at 8 with "The Simpsons", which is still going strong in its 17th season. Fox moved "American Dad" to 8:30, which means I have to watch something else for a half-hour, because that show is TERRIBLE. For now, I can watch Sunday Night Football on NBC. NBC has done a good job with this production, and while it won't replace "Monday Night Football", it will probably get better ratings than the new ESPN version. At 9, it's back to Fox for "Family Guy", which is easily the funniest show on television. As long as the well doesn't run dry on hilarious pop culture references, that show won't get old. "The War At Home" has moved to 9:30 this year and it's a decent show, enough to hold my attention anyway.

Monday night used to mean "7th Heaven" on the WB. The network no longer exists, and the show should have followed suit like it was going to. It has already exceeded its shelf life by a couple years. The CW certainly could have come up with another new show to take its place or brought "Everwood" over from the WB instead. By moving it to Sunday nights, they'll allow it to slowly fade away. Thanks to some last minute schedule tinkering, 8:00 on Mondays now belongs to "Everybody Hates Chris". Chris Rock has done a fantastic job with this show, and adding Whoopi Goldberg to the cast was a great move. Last year, this was on Thursday nights, which meant I rarely could see it cuz other stuff was on. In this new time slot, I thought I could watch it... but then CBS moved "How I Met Your Mother" to 8:00. I got into this show right at the beginning last year because of its great cast, which includes Neil Patrick Harris ("Doogie Howser") and Alyson Hannigan, who found her niche as a comedic actress with the "American Pie" movies. So it looks like I don't get to watch "Chris" this year, either. At 8:30, CBS has put a new sitcom called "The Class"... because it didn't work as the lead-in show at 8, and there's a good reason... it's not good.

At 9:00, it's over to NBC for "Heroes". This a new show that sucked me in with its premise: evolution has caused people everywhere to develop superpowers, and now they are banding together to save the world. No costumes here, just regular people. Fox has moved their outstanding new show, "Justice", to 9:00 Monday from Wednesday where it debuted. Jerry Bruckheimer put his CSI touch on the show with the fancy effects and such, and the only thing I can compare it to is the movie "Runaway Jury". If you liked that movie, you'll love this show. However, since it's now on at the same time as "Heroes", I have to tape one and watch the other. "Studio 60" is on at 10:00 but I can't stay up that late so I have yet to see it, but I want to.

As for Tuesday night... I saw the debut of "Friday Night Lights" on NBC, and it did hold my attention. It's a very fast-paced show with a lot going on that you have to keep track of. The actual game action... sorry, it played like a copy of "Varsity Blues" and a little too Hollywood for me; coming back from down 10 in the last minute with your backup quarterback in the game? There's room for improvement but I'll keep watching when I can. Fox has "House" on in that time slot, and that's an okay show. What I didn't realize is that Hugh Laurie, the star of that show, is BRITISH. I happened to land on an episode of "Inside the Actors Studio" where he was the guest, and I was shocked. I've got more respect for the guy; for a British guy, he can do an outstanding "pissed off American" accent.

Wednesday nights at 8:00, I watch "30 Rock" on NBC... for now. They're already planning to move it to Thursday at 9, which will not work for me (I'll explain later). What I've seen of the show though has been great. Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin make a hilarious team, and who'd think I'd ever say this but Alec Baldwin's a pretty funny guy. After that... nothing. There's just nothing good on afterward. I tried to get into "Lost" at the beginning, and the only thing I "lost" was interest.

Thursday nights at 8:00 are, as usual, a traffic jam. Fox has "Til Death", which is a hilarious new sitcom starring Brad Garrett from "Everybody Loves Raymond", and instead of playing a character, he gets to be more himself. At the same time, "My Name Is Earl" is on NBC, which I also love. Jason Lee equals funny and he wouldn't have been in 5 Kevin Smith movies if that weren't true. And "Smallville" is on the CW. "Smallville" wins because it's an hour long... and between that and "Heroes", I do seem to be getting some kind of comic-book TV thing going. At 10:00, ABC has placed "Six Degrees", a new drama about random people in New York becoming interconnected. It's very interesting to watch... although I have to admit I will watch anything with Erika Christensen in it... cuz she's hot.

That leaves us with Friday and Saturday nights, or as I call them, "the black hole of programming." The networks don't even TRY to put anything decent on these nights anymore, because people my age go out those nights, whether it's dinner, the movies, a bar, we're not at home, so why put something worthwhile on.

And there you have it... and that's not even all the shows, because of course some of them haven't debuted yet. The words "new fall season" are not supposed to mean that it takes the entire "season" of fall to roll all these out. Fox waited until November (after the playoffs) to start the next season of "The OC", which was last seen jumping the shark when they killed Marissa off in last season's finale. Good thing Adam Brody and Rachel Bilson have some movie roles under their belts; I think they realized that their meal ticket is just about done. However, I'll still watch it, which means Thursday at 9 is occupied and I can't watch "30 Rock". And we will have to wait until January for "24" (which I love), and "American Idol" (which I ignore). For now, though, this is as good as it gets. Thank you and good night.

Some Re-Education Is Needed

Lately, it seems like my commute to and from work is becoming more and more hazardous to my health. The driving population of Syracuse is getting crazier and crazier, and nothing seems to be getting done about this. A recent series of letters to the Sub-Standard... errrrr, Post-Standard touching on the propriety of "right on red" is a good start, but I think we need to start from the ground up. A few years ago I created what I called the "Fool-Proof Road Rage Quiz"; if you'd like to read it, just click here. Unfortunately, in light of the fact that some of these drivers today apparently got their drivers licenses from a cereal box, I think I need to dumb things down for them. The following is a list of things that drivers will see in their everyday commute and what they mean, specifically what they mean and what they DON'T mean...

#1: The "MERGE" sign on an on-ramp

What it means: if you are in traffic already, you are to allow the cars on the on-ramp to merge in an orderly fashion... this can be done by taking turns between the car in traffic and the car from the on-ramp or, if it's available, by moving your car to the next lane over to allow the car on the on-ramp to merge easily

What it DOESN'T mean: if you are in traffic already, you stay in your lane, not giving an inch to the car trying to merge and basically saying, "I'm here already, deal with it"... if you are coming up the on-ramp, you essentially play "chicken" with the car already in traffic until either he lets you in or you have to slam on the brakes to avoid ending up in the guardrail

#2: The "YIELD" sign on an on-ramp

What it means: if you are on the on-ramp, you have to stop and let the cars in traffic go by so they can either continue at a safe speed or in some cases, move over into your lane to exit the highway

What it DOESN'T mean: the same thing as "MERGE"... as in you don't stop, you crawl along the off/on-ramp until you either see a small opening and cut someone off, you stop in the now-off-ramp and snarl traffic, or you keep going all the way into the shoulder, thus running the risk of hitting someone from the next on-ramp

#3: A red light

What it means: you stop... and if you are able, you can turn right

What it DOESN'T mean: you don't stop because the last car ran it so you can too... or you see you can make a right turn and you slow into your turn but you don't actually stop... or you wedge yourself onto the right side of the lane or the shoulder and you stick yourself out into traffic so you can see around the guy next to you to plan your right turn

#4: The "No Turn on Red" sign

What it means: when you come to a red light with this sign, you STOP and you wait until the light turns green to make your right turn

What it DOESN'T mean: you do everything you would do for a normal red light when you don't know what it means...

And I really wish I didn't have to go this far but I do...

#5: The solid white line on the right side of the road

What it means: that is the SHOULDER... it is only to be used to pull over in the event of an emergency or, where applicable, to park

What it DOESN'T mean: it's another lane, to be used for going around someone waiting to make a left turn against oncoming traffic... which sometimes may also be about to turn left...

I know this isn't going to change a thing and people won't suddenly become wiser because I devoted this space to such material... but god knows the police don't enforce things like this... they're too busy pulling people over for... other things... So I sometimes feel it necessary to enforce it myself. For example, if a guy violates #2, I don't let him cut me off... which usually results in a horn being blown and a finger being flipped. When I get to a place where I am going to turn left, I intentionally move my car over just enough to the right so the guy who wants to pass me on the shoulder can't... well, not without rolling his SUV into a ditch anyway. When I get to a red light, I stop... in my lane... as in the center of my lane.

One of these days, I'll make such an attempt to keep everything around me safe... and I'll probably get killed by some overaggressive driver who decided to take his misinterpretation of the rules WAY too far over the edge. You can try to tell me otherwise but I don't think I'll be able to hear you, as my ears are still ringing from the guy beeping the horn behind me this morning because I actually approached #3 correctly...