...or is the Olympics held in the summer to give NBC something in prime time someone might actually watch?

By now it should be obvious that the Olympics is held only once every four years because no one wants to watch Greco-Roman wrestling any more often than that. It seems apparent that, if the Greeks had envisioned the inclusion of synchronized diving, handball and dressage as part of their beloved games, they might have chucked the entire idea and invented beach volleyball instead. Seriously, if your sport is broadcast on Telemundo at five in the morning (men's field hockey) or Bravo at midnight (tennis) don't plan to challenge the Superbowl for viewers any time soon.

Actually the Olympics are great. The opening ceremony was breathtaking...if a little long. Memo to the planners for Rio - 2016: If the contingent of athletes from a given country would fit comfortably in a booth at Sizzler, they don't get to march in by themselves. Put them in groups by continent. Everyone wants to root for their country, even if they haven't the first clue what sport they're watching. We chant USA! USA! during water polo while fourteen tall guys tread water and bounce a ball off each others heads. We watch with wonder at fencing where the trick seems to be to figure out which guy/gal in white is from your country before they get "touched". That takes about three nanoseconds. (When I was young, touching for three nanoseconds was called sex.)

NBC is broadcasting as much of the Games as anyone is likely to want. The geeks may complain about streaming and tape delays but most of us want prime time on the big screen. From archery to trampoline it's all there. Naturally NBC has maintained the personality of the various cable stations by scheduling the events on the venues that represent the closest fit. The primary network, regular broadcast NBC, has the MOR stuff: swimming, gymnastics, track and field. MSNBC, the liberal station, has fencing, sailing, badminton. You know, elitist stuff. Telemundo is featuring soccer, weightlifting and cycling; all that foreign stuff. Bravo has judo, wrestling, and synchronized swimming. How very butch!

All of these events spread out over two weeks begs the age-old question: How many of these contests are actually sports? The discussion should properly begin with the Greeks. They got together every four years beginning in 776 B.C. and had a race. ("B.C." That's "Before Costas") The winner's name was inscribed on a tablet which is still visible today. (See also, the Birth of Cybermetrics.) Like the Olympics of today, the Greeks added events to the competition as the Olympic idea gained traction. (Mass Suicide was added briefly by the Spartans but was discontinued due to the difficulty in obtaining veteran coaches.) However, the "sports" that were included tended to be along the lines of war stuff (shooting arrows, throwing spears) and contests that involved running. They also had wrestling but all that groping was mostly for the "light in the sandals" crowd. Any self respecting Greek who suggested table tennis or beach volleyball would have been laughed all the way to Helios. These games endured until about 393 AD when the Roman emperor stopped all pagan rituals...at least ones without name sponsors. (The French tried to reinvigorate the Games during the Revolution in 1796 but competitive head-tossing never caught on.)

The Greeks got the games going again in 1820 but it wasn't until 1896 that the so-called modern games were organized in Athens by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, a Frenchman with a lot of time on his hands. Since then the Games have grown from 571 athletes and 14 countries to 10,500 athletes from 204 nations. The number of events has also grown because the host country is allowed to introduce a new contest as part of the hosting honor. Some, like basketball, have endured. Others, like tug of war and softball, not so much. A few countries have included events that were clearly proposed as a joke. There's no other way to explain rhythmic gymnastics and wishu.

Anyway back to the original question to wit, what constitutes a "sport"? We can all agree that running, jumping (with or without a pole), throwing stuff and fighting are sports. Toss in swimming (running in water) and rowing (running in a canoe), cycling (running on a bike) and even some gymnastics. Rings are just flat-out cool. We can also probably agree that stuff like gymnastic floor exercises, table tennis and dressage are not sports. They might require years of practice and incredible physical conditioning but so does Donkey Kong and tango-dancing. Dedication to perfection is laudable but not always sport. Beyond that, intelligent people can differ.

I'm not sure shooting qualifies as sport unless the contestants were shooting at each other however, if guns were around in 776 BC you can bet the Greeks would have been competing. Also any event where the women's competition is more interesting to watch than the men's should be out. Field hockey, volleyball (beach and otherwise), badminton... gone. You might as well leave sailing in. Absolutely no one pays attention anyway. Any event that awards style points should be shown the door. I'm pretty sure that the Greeks weren't holding up little tablets that said "8.25" over the mangled body of a wrestler who finished second.

It seems clear that the Olympics has, in keeping with Parkinson's Law, expanded to fill the number of cable stations allotted for its coverage. Whether anyone is watching horses dance or pre-pubescent girls endanger their reproductive parts on the uneven bars is very much beside the point. If there's a Team USA competing, NBC is covering. So let's all watch the equestrian events in hopes of seeing Ann Romney's horse's rump. No, not that one. The four-legged one in the Olympics.

...or is the only time to talk about gun control when it's not the right time?

About the only thing upon which the NRA and the rest of us can agree is that serious, enforced gun laws probably wouldn't have prevented James Eagan Holmes from shooting 70 people in an Aurora, CO theater. We can also agree that the shootings at Virginia Tech, Columbine, and everywhere else associated with senseless slaughter would most likely have occurred regardless of any weapons restrictions. Beyond that there is no agreement.

I realize that the Supreme Court rulings in McDonald and Heller pretty much ended the conversation on the Second Amendment. Your right to own, carry, conceal, stockpile, and defend yourself with a firearm is, for the foreseeable future, settled law...much good may it ever do you. However, the notion that it's too soon to debate our easy access to weapons, including assault weapons, and its effect on our society is not just wrong it's heinous. For a loudmouth like Chris Christie to suggest that we should not "politicize" the tragedy in Aurora is to imply that constructive dialogue about guns in America is somehow a political issue like taxes or foreign policy. That's bullshit. We can and should talk about this while the smell of cordite is still fresh in the noses of the survivors.

Hell, theater owners are working toward a ban on costumes in theaters. That's like banning all underwear on airplanes. Does anyone think that preventing geeks from dressing up as Batman or Frodo will prevent the next senseless act of violence? Nevertheless theater owners haven't called a press conference to moan that "it's too soon" to talk about precautions to improve the safety of moviegoers. At least they are trying to think of something. The gun lobby and all who serve them are only interested in covering their own asses. The gun gang doesn't even wait for someone in power to mention gun ownership. They send their mouthpieces straight to Fox News to decry any and all who would "use this tragedy to further their anti-Second Amendment agenda".

Talking about gun laws won't result in any change in America's love affair with firearms. No amount of carnage will cause one Congressman or one Senator to change his/her stance on guns. But make no mistake this is not a political issue...it's a money issue. The NRA funds all of the Republicans and most of the Western states' Democrats. Besides, there's no public outcry to curtail gun ownership. There is no serious counterbalancing force to compete with the gun lobby.

Jeez, one moron Congressman suggested that if the theatergoers in Aurora were all packing, there would have been fewer patrons killed. All those who think that a shootout in a packed theater would have been a good idea please kill yourselves now.

It is baffling to think that, after 9/11, our response was to shred our Constitutional rights to privacy in a panicked effort to protect ourselves from another attack. We began to hate all things Muslim. We rounded up and imprisoned suspected terrorists all over the world. Some are still in jail. Does anyone doubt that if the Aurora, CO shooter had been an Iranian or Pakistani our rage would have been uncontrollable? Why is it then that we can't muster the slightest scintilla of indignation toward gun sellers or the politicians who pander to them? Where is the outrage?

Reasonable people can agree that, if we can monitor the purchase of fertilizer or dynamite, we can certainly keep track of people who stockpile ammunition. There are clearly no legitimate reasons to own thousands of rounds for an assault rifle. The "slippery slope " argument is crap. There are fifty restrictions we could logically apply to gun ownership without ever curtailing the sacred right to own a gun...or several guns. Suppose we ask the President to sign an oath that he will never sign an anti-gun bill? Would that encourage the NRA to green light mandatory trigger-guards or chemical tagging of gunpowder? Sure it will. Just not in your lifetime.

...or is modern Conservatism suffering from oxygen deprivation?

Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and I can prove it.

Just a few simple questions will establish what we have assumed for years: namely that too much Fox News can have a detrimental effect on your brain. Repeated exposure to Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly Neil Cavuto, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy and the rest can permanently corrupt parts of the frontal lobe (higher brain function), the temporal lobe (controls memory) and the cerebellum (balance). There can be little doubt that this is not a nature/nurture issue. No one is born conservative. It happens over time, like hemorrhoids. And left untreated the symptoms can go from mildly Foxified to the more serious Foxanoma; and as we all know...you can't fix Foxanoma.

It's true that there still exists a small breed of conservatives called Classic Conservatives. They roamed freely throughout most of the 20th century. These are the small government, low taxes brand of the species who understood the need for compromise. They accepted the possibility that the other side might have an idea worth considering. They actually worked with people with whom they disagreed. What a quaint notion! Their leaders included the likes of Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. Even John McCain might have been included in their ranks. Tragically the few ClassicCons that exist today are being hunted to extinction. Richard Lugar of Indiana is only the most recent casualty.

I know, you think I'm being harsh. After all some of your best friends... If that's true then it's not too late. You can still save some of them. But you must stage an intervention. Otherwise you're an enabler. Make them answer the following question to show your friends the error of their ways.

I suggest using a crayon.

The answer to each question is

A- liberal

or

B- conservative

Which group contains the greatest number of people who:

1) don't believe in evolution?

2) believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice?

3) believe that the current President is not a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?

4) believe that the current president is a Muslim?

4a) believe that the current President is under the spell of an anti-American radical Christian preacher from Chicago? (hint it's apparently possible to believe both 4 and 4a.)

5) believe that the current President is a socialist, communist or fascist?

6) believe that the Affordable Care Act is a government take-over of healthcare?

7) believe that deficits have only started to rise since 2008?

8) are convinced that the current administration intends to remove all firearms from private hands? (include cold, dead hands in answer.)

9) believe that requiring photo ID for voting is an honest effort to curb voter fraud?

10) believe Trayvon Martin should have been more accommodating to George Zimmerman?

11) believe there is a global conspiracy among "so called climate scientists" to delude the people into believing in climate change?

12) believe all media except for Fox is liberally bias and in the tank for Barack Obama?

13) (and a bonus question for you oldsters) believe Jane Fonda should be arrested as a traitor and collaborator?

By this time your conservative friend has either walked out or fired off a series of tu quoque statements about MSNBC and what a slime Al Sharpton is. No matter, the point has been made.

True, not all conservatives believe all of this crap but damn few are willing to go on the record in opposition. When was the last time Mitt Romney stood in front of the American people and disavowed those among his followers who think that Barack Obama is a Kenyan or that gays are people and deserve the right to marry?

The point is if you believe that Jeremiah Wright is the President's guru, and Obama is coming for your guns, and climate change is junk science, then face it, you just might be a Tea Party wingnut and... none too bright.

...or have college sports become too big to be run by colleges?

There's nothing new here.

If anyone out there thinks that the horrific events unfolding at Penn State are unusual, uncommon or without precedent, you were probably born during the Clinton Administration. True, none of the past scandals involved pedophiles but they were nevertheless symptomatic of the hold that college sports has over the American landscape. Stories like this are never about the actual incident (or in this case, many incidents). Students with exceptional skills will continue to drive drunk, beat up their girlfriends and take money for work not performed. (Hell, I did that for 37 years and never made the papers once!)

No. The real story is how the institution deals with the issue. It's about how the situation gets handled or doesn't get handled. It's about morals vs. money, about reputation vs. doing the right thing. It's about protecting the institution vs. protecting the victims. On every level Penn State and its administration went the wrong way and no penalty from the NCAA, the courts or the public will seem too severe.

This isn't about pro sports. People who get paid to entertain, including politicians, are going to get a pass once in a while. Celebrity has perks. Some of those perks include reporters routing through your trash, following your children around the playground and interviewing your college girlfriend to find out how good you were in the sack. If that sounds like a fair trade for getting a good table at a fine restaurant, go run for someone or for something. Entertainers are also going to get into trouble and their peccadilloes, unlike yours, will make the news. Their rise and fall stories are interesting but not indicative of anything. Lawrence Taylor's predilection for underage hookers or Tiger Woods' adventures with cocktail waitresses are titillating stories but hardly an indictment of pro football or the PGA tour. College sports however is an entirely different can of worms.

Let's start with the "college" part. No college, with the possible exception of Brigham Young, was ever founded to be a sports mecca. Universities were created to: 1) Meet chicks/guys, 2) learn to drink dangerous quantities of cheap alcohol, 3) eat the kinds of foods you will spend the rest of your life warning your children about and, if there's time, 4) learning something. Prior to 1869 there was no college football. The first game, Rutgers - Princeton, was attended by fewer people than you might see in the waiting room of your dentist's office. Colleges were fine without big time athletic programs. With most colleges and universities charging $40, 000 to $50,000 a year, (before you buy the first blue book) it's hard to understand why any school needs the headache of a Quintin Daley or Lawrence Phillips. More about Mr. Daley in a moment.

Schools must learn to live without both the revenue and the scandals. True, many schools have, at least on the surface maintained a "clean program". As a matter of fact, Penn State before Jerry Sandusky and his affectations was just such a program. Show me a clean program in big-time college sports and I'll show you a program that has yet to be caught. Unlike the pros, college reputations matter. Southern Methodist University in Dallas received the so-called death penalty from the NCAA for paying players and 25 years later it is still a black mark on its escutcheon. (SMU was so desperate to be known for something else they agreed to be the home of the George W. Bush Library. Now that's desperation.)

The University of San Francisco, having given the world Bill Russell, was justly proud of its basketball program. However, when a series of recruiting incidents culminated with the criminal assault of a female student by one Quintin Daley, the hottest pro prospect in the country, the Jesuits who run USF didn't hesitate. They offered to honor all basketball scholarships if a team member wished to stay, wished bon chance to the others and padlocked the gym for three years. The squeak of sneakers on a hardwood floor went unheard from 1982 to 1985. As a person who rarely has anything nice to say about the actions of the RCC, the decision by Rev. John LoShiavo took real courage.

Penn State must suspend its football program. Either you are a proud university with an impressive record of academic achievement or you are a punch-line school that is nothing more than a feeder operation for pro football. Yes, thousands of innocent restaurant owners, vendors and athletes will be punished for a crime in which they never took part but there is a bigger issue here. The football program at Penn State was used as an excuse for the most vile crime the human mind can contempalte...violation of a child. Jerry Sandusky was given free reign to molest kids at will exclusively because he was attached to football. He used his football access as bait. Outsized crime requires outsized punishment. Penn State must melt down the Paterno statue and the football program he represented.