While I was talking to my coworker, I cracked my knuckles.  A 4 year-old girl immediately turned around and shouted, "don't crack your knuckles, you'll get arthritis!  Then you'll get old like my grandma!"   

        

     I've been a Green Day fan since the early 1990's, and like millions of other people, I enjoyed their last CD, American Idiot.  As you can imagine, I was looking forward to hearing their next CD, 21st Century Breakdown.  Here's my opinion: It isn't bad, but it wasn't worth the wait.

     21st Century Breakdown contains 18 songs separated into three acts which follow the travails of two people named Christian and Gloria.  My first impression is that it is American Idiot on steroids.  It's bloated and seems to be trying to hard to recapture the success of American Idiot.  I also find some of the religious imagery forced.

     Green Day often gets criticized for not being punk.  They're not, but they are a great pop punk band.  Unfortunately, they've moved closer to the "pop" than the "punk" with with 21st Century Breakdown.  Several of the songs would actually be right at home on a Fountains of Wayne CD.  With that said, there were some songs that jumped out at me.  Two of them were Horseshoes and Handgrenades and East Jesus Nowhere.

     On a positive note, Green Day is embarking on a tour in support of 21st Century Breakdown.  I'm not thrilled with the new album, but I already have tickets to see one of their shows.  It should be a good one.

        

     Craigslist.com has announced they will be ending their erotic services section and will replace it with...an adult services section?  It doesn't seem like much of a change to me, just different names for the same thing.  Although, the new section will be reviewed by employees and will require a $10 credit card payment to create a paper trail. 

     This is all in response to the "Craig's List Killer," who alleged to be Phillip Markoff, a 23 year old medical school student.  Craig's List received a lot of criticism, since that is where Markoff found his victims.  It's rather foolish if you think about it.  If Craig's List didn't exist, the killer would have found his victims some other way.  Think about it: There were murders before Craig's List!

     What this really comes down to is killing two birds with one stone.  Politicians get to grandstand on a high profile case to make it look like they are doing something, while also helping to control all that "immoral" activity on the internet.  After all, they know what's right for us.

        

                                            

     On May 27th, Miss California Carrie Prejean will cohost Fox and Friends on Fox News.  I'm glad to see her get some attention that isn't negative.  I had never heard of her before Perez Hilton asked her about her thoughts on same-sex marriage, which she opposes.  SInce then, we have been treated to stories about her breast implants, unpublished pictures of her in her underwear, scathing criticism, and an attempt to take her title.  It has been a tough month for Miss California.

     I disagree with Carrie Prejean's views on same-sex marriage, but I fully support her right to have her own opinion.  If you ever needed proof that there is indeed a liberal media bias, just look at how she has been treated for respectfully sharing her opinion.  My guess is that she'll now be criticized for her guest spot on Fox News and portrayed as a tool of the vast right wing conspiracy.  Her detractors will always find something to criticize.

        

     Four Swedish men were recently found guilty in a file-sharing case and were sentenced to one year in jail.  Two of the men, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, own the site Piratebay.org, and the other two men, Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundström, are employees.  Besides receiving a year in prison, the men will have to pay $3.6 million dollars to the copyright holders of 33 files which were shared on the network.  The copyright holders include: Warner Brothers, MGM, Columbia Pictures, 20th Century Fox Films, Sony and Universal.

     I personally think sending them to jail is ridiculous.  33 files were shared, but the punishment seems so much worse than what has happened in other countries for people who have shared more files.  In the United States, many individuals settled out of court and paid a fine of a few thousand dollars.  Actually, I found the RIAA's legal battle on file downloaders distasteful.  I assume I am not alone, and that is why they abandoned the practice.  They probably feel that the file-sharing sites are the way to go.  This method might slow things down, but it will not stop file-sharing.  When one avenue closes, three more will open

        

     One of my students, who just turned 5, asked me if he could go to the bathroom.  I guess I didn't answer him fast enough, because then he added, "I have to go bad.  If I fart again, poop is going to come out!"  Needless to say, I encouraged him to get in their quickly.

        

     One of my students, who is 5 years old, recently injured himself.  While he was playing he cut his finger...his middle finger.  I don't know what it is with kids, but that's always the finger that seems to get injured.  With four fingers and a thumb, you would think that the middle finger would be involved in just 20% of all finger/thumb accidents, but this isn't the case.  In all my years in early childhood education, the middle finger seems like it is 3 to 4 times more likely to be injured.  

     Well, this boy decided to show everyone his injury.  It's almost like he was injured in battle and wanted to show everyone what happened.  He would walk up to them, hand held out, and finger fully extended as he recounted the story of his accident.  The funny part is that he truly had no idea that raising your middle finger was bad.  I do think he felt good about all the attention his injury received, he just didn't know the real reason why everyone was so surprised. 

        

     I hate Ticketmaster.  It doesn't have anything to do specifically with the company, it's do to what the music industry and law allow it to get away with, which is quite a bit.   The way things are starting to look, it's only going to get worse.

     A local radio station holds concerts every summer and sells tickets through either Brown Paper Tickets or eTix,  instead of Ticketmaster.  I was shocked at the difference in fees, especially for Brown Paper Tickets.  If I remember correctly, my fee was less that $2 per ticket.  Now, let's contrast that with Ticketmaster who charges at least a $10 or $15 fee per ticket for an average concert, along with a processing fee on top of that.  Why is there such a discrepancy?  Since venues only deal with one agency, you are basically locked into a monopoly situation.

     This is bad, but what really angers me are the auctions.  Ticketmaster recently began holding tickets back  and auctioning them off to the highest bidder, or just holding them back for a higher asking price.  This is legal, yet selling a ticket you bought for a small profit is considered scalping and is illegal.  Where is the sense in this?

     Ticketmaster is legal and maximizing their profits, which they have every right to do.  What angers me is that club owners and musicians allow their fans to be gouged when there are better options available.  I'm sure there must be financial incentives for the owners and musicians, but when is enough enough?  To make matters worse, Ticketmaster has announced a merger with Live Nation, the largest concert promoter in the United States.   This is great for Ticketmaster, but it will be terrible for music fans.

        

     Last night, I was using my computer while American Idol was on in the background.  There's only one contestant who has gotten my attention so far, so when I heard she was ready to perform, I went over to take a look.  The performance left a lot to be desired, but that wasn't the problem.  The problem was how the judges were fixated on the dress she wore.  There was hardly a mention of the song she sang or her technique.  Instead, they were obsessed with the fashion choice of a 16 year old girl.

     I'm not a fan of pop music.  The big reason is the poor quality of the music, but I'm also annoyed by the focus on appearance and things that simply don't matter.  After all, when you're listening to the radio, do you see the clothing a singer is wearing?  If you could, would you care?

        

     I asked two children in my class to read today.  The first child encountered a word that confused him and asked me how to say it, rather than sound it out himself.  I asked him how the word was spelled and he said, "A-S."  I asked him what sound the "A" made, then what sound the "S" made, then I told him to put them together.  Then he looked at me and said, "isn't that a bad word?"

     Later on, another child had difficulty with a word, so I asked him to spell if for me, which he did.   I asked him what sound the "B", the "U", and the "T" made.  Once he identified the sounds, he put them together and said "but."  He giggled for a long time afterwards.

        

     You've probably heard people talking about rock being dead for a while now.  If you take this statement at face value, it would lead you to believe there are not any good rock bands out there, that the rock music is stale, or just plain irrelevant.  Well, rock isn't dead.  It's being suffocated, and unfortunately, you're probably one of the people to blame.

     Now, you may be asking why it's your fault.  After all, you haven't done anything.  This is precisely my point.  Like most people, you are probably a casual music fan, or you're too lazy to look around and explore.  If you're one of those people who rely on the local pop music station for new music, then you're to blame.  If you listen to one of those stations, what do you hear?  My guess is Beyonce Knowles, Chris Brown Jason Mraz, Britney Spears, etc.  I don't see any rock there.  Just more of the same mind numbing pop music.

     At this point, you're probably combing your memory trying to think of rock music that is played on your local station, and you've come up with bands like Maroon Five, Coldplay, and Daughtry.  If you consider those bands real rock music, then it's no wonder you probably don't like it much or you think it's dead.  Rock was much more popular 20 years ago.  It wasn't uncommon to turn on a pop station and hear Motley Crue, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Guns N' Roses, or Whitesnake.  Now they're relegated to rock stations exclusively.  The "rock is dead" statement seems to imply that something happened in the genre that reduced the quality, but this isn't the case.  Rock didn't leave the mainstream, the mainstream left rock.

     If you're reading this and you're still convinced that there aren't any good rock bands out there, or that rock is dead, I have a homework assignment for you.  Turn off the pop music station and check out some of these current bands: Buckcherry, Theory of a Dead Man, Against Me, Kill Hannah, or Saliva.  Or better yet, why not actually put some effort into looking for good up and coming bands.  But whatever you do, stop relying on pop stations to tell you what you should be listening to.

        

     It's official: Blink 182 is back.  From what I've been reading, Mark Hoppus, Tom DeLonge, and Travis Barker are working on new material and are ready to tour in 2009.  It's about time.  I never understood how successful bands who seemed to be having fun could just dissolve.  It seems crazy to me.  As an added bonus, having Blink 182 together might also mean the end of Angels and Airwaves and +44.  We can only hope! 

     The only concern I have is with the band's health.  I'm hoping they don't catch a case of LinkinParkitis.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with this disorder let me explain.  It's a disease that affects popular rock bands, causing them to drastically change their sound, become boring, and cite their newfound "maturity" as the reason for the change.  It is named after the band Linkin Park, who has quite a severe case.  Hopefully, Blink 182 can avoid the dreaded illness and pick up where they left off.

        

     I recently asked one of the children in my class to read Higglety Pigglety Pop by Maurice Sendak during morning circle.  He had finished a little more than half the book when he suddenly stopped and came over to me.  He showed me the book and was concerned about the "bad" word he saw, and he didn't want to read it.  I looked at the "bad" word and told him it was OK to say.  It was actually referring to a type of tree.  Whoever though a description of an "ash" tree could be so controversial?

        

     Just out of curiosity, I did a search for Michael Phelps on Yahoo and there were more than 111,000,000 search result.  This isn't surprising, since Michael Phelps has been to two Olympics and won 14 gold medals, including 8 at the 2008 games in Beijing.  What is surprising are some of the suggested searches: "Michael Phelps smoking", "Michael Phelps Pot", and "Michael Phelps Smoking Picture".  It seems like the country is getting a little carried away by the tabloid picture of Michael Phelps smoking at a party.

     I'm tired of hearing people complain about how disappointed they are in Michael Phelps.  He is arguably the greatest Olympian of all-time, and at only 23, he could easily add even more gold medals to his record total.  Since his behavior didn't harm anyone else, his private life should not have any impact on his professional accomplishments.  I think smoking marijuana is stupid, especially for an athlete, but it is his business.

     In other posts, I have criticized other athletes for using drugs, but those were performance enhancing drugs.  Someone like Alex "A-Roid" Rodriquez used  performance enhancing drugs to cheat, and benefit financially from his deception.  This is not the case with Michael Phelps, whose accomplishments are legitimate and should not be tainted by gossip.

        

     I was drawing with some children when a 4 year old boy came to me with a problem: His crayon wouldn't work.  That caught me by surprise, so I asked him why it wouldn't work.  He then proceeded to scribble on a sheet of white paper with his white crayon and said, "look, it's broken."  We then spent the next few minutes gathering all the white crayons so we could test them to see which ones work.  It turns out they were all "broken".

        

     I started using Myspace about four years ago.  Someone told me it was a good way to meet people, which I can't dispute.  Over the years, I have met some acquaintances on Myspace.  Shortly after joining Myspace, I had heard about Facebook and decided to give that a shot.  I was thoroughly unimpressed, and my page remained dormant for 2 or 3 years.  

     About 2 months ago, on a whim, I decided to give Facebook another try.  I had become tired of all the ads/spam in my Myspace inbox, along with people who loaded their pages up with so many glitter graphics that my computer was starting to glow.  After getting the hang of Facebook, I found it to be far superior to Myspace.

     In many ways, Myspace feels to busy and commercial, and fails to facilitate true networking.  I find that Facebook actually helps you connect with people.  If you find one person you know, you can look through their friend's list and find 5 more.  If you find an old friend, you can recommend their profile to all your friends they might know.  It's also possible to form groups to bring specific communities together: Alumni groups, coworkers, old neighbors, etc.  Myspace also has some of these functions, but it isn't tied together as well.  The site almost feels compartmentalized.

    I find that Facebook also helps keep us in touch.  While Myspace will tell you about a friend's page update, it doesn't really tell you about your friends.  Facebook's news feeds and status message help you stay in contact and keep in touch.  Plus, the chat function always seems to work, which cannot be said for Myspace.

     Finally, Myspace seems to be becoming a little more childish by the day, whereas Facebook actually seems more professional.  Not in a stuffy way, but in a way that really works by helping you network, find old friends, and stay in touch with them.  You know, the reasons why you would actually want to join a social networking site.

    

        

     When I saw this article, I had to check it out.  I check Facebook at least 3 or 4 times each day, and I was wondering how my usage stacked up.  I'm happy to report that I'm not a Facebook addict.  Actually, I only answered yes to one question...number 4 checking Facebook on my phone.  Take a look at these 10 questions.  Are you addicted?

10 warning signs that you may be addicted to Facebook

1. Facebook is your home page.

2. You update your status more than twice a day.

3. You have over 500 "friends" half of whom you've never actually met.

4. As soon as you step away from your computer you're on FB on your phone.

5. You are a FB stalker. You qualify as a FB stalker if you

a) click on someone's profile more than once a day even if they haven't messaged or tagged you in a photo.

b) have dragged and dropped more than 3 FB photos (not from your own profile)

c) actually go to a place mentioned on someone's page in hopes of seeing them in real life...creepy!

6. You change your profile picture more than a 12-year=old girl.

7. You have checked your FB page while reading this article.

8. You clean up your "wall" so it looks like you spend less time on FB.

9. You are a member of more than 10 groups and respond to every event invitation "attending" even if you have no intention of going.

10. You change your relationship status just to mess with people.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tara-stiles/help-im-addicted-to-faceb_b_166726.html

        

     Christine Newton John, 41, has pleaded guilty to exercising her 73 year old husband James Mason to death by dragging him around a pool and refusing to let him out.  The activity resulted in a fatal heart attack.  The guilty plea was likely the result of a surveillance camera that caught the events on tape.

     You're probably shocked by this like I was, but then out of nowhere, the story gets even weirder.  It turns out that James Mason was friends with his wife's family before they married.  Oh, by the way, when Christine Newton-John was born, her name was John Vallandingham.  She had gender reassignment surgery in 1993 and changed his/her name to that of a certain pop singer.  This makes the story even more disturbing.  Why not Debbie Gibson or Cindy Lauper?


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090214/D96BGT8G0.html

        

     Concert promoter Live Nation and Ticketmaster have announced they are merging.  The deal will save the combined company $40 million per year, which they can pass on to the consumer.  Yeah right.  Things are bad in the concert world, and if this merger is approved, they will only get worse.  If you don't believe it, just look at the legal problems Ticketmaster had when they intentionally held back premium seats to a Bruce Springsteen concert and redirected customers to those tickets, even though other seats were available.  There is also a class action lawsuit pending due a similar practice involving a Smashing Pumpkins concert. 

     Live Nation and Ticketmaster soak fans.  Anyone who has ever attended a Live Nation show or purchased tickets through Ticketmaster knows that.  What I don't understand is why socially conscious musicians don't boycott Ticketmaster and encourage the use of other companies.  It's routine for ticketmaster to charge $10 or so per ticket, plus an additional fee, yet Brown Paper Ticketing charges only a dollar or two.  Greed will prevent some musicians from making waves, but hopefully, someone will challenge the system.

     Speaking of greed, what about the sale of "premium seats"?  I bought tickets for a Van Halen concert last year, and ticket prices ranged from about $50 per ticket to about $150.  If you wanted "premium" seats, you had to enter an auction and pay upward of $1,000 each.  So, just to summarize, if I sell a $150 seat for $1,000, It's ticket scalping and I'm breaking the law, but if Ticketmaster does it through a subsidiary, it's legal. 


http://www.dfw.com/111/story/94947.html

        

     The unemployment rate is rising, consumer confidence is down, stocks are down sharply from last year, and many states are trying to raise taxes.  It seems like the tough economy is hitting everyone hard.  People in all income brackets and all industries are experiencing a major downturn.  Well, maybe not all industries.

     As usual, sports still seem to be a bit out of touch with reality.  The Los Angeles Dodgers offered Manny Ramirez a $25 million one year contract and he refused it.  For those of you who aren't familiar with Manny Ramirez, let me offer a description.  He's a 37 year old baseball player who is a good hitter, but rarely plays hard, is a defensive liability, a cancer for a team, and overall, your typical spoiled athlete.  Of course, Manny Ramirez doesn't  realize how useless he truly is.  Did I mention that he also isn't exceptionally bright?  Despite this, the Dodgers were foolish enough to offer him $25 million to play a game for just 8 months.  Their foolishness was matched only by Ramirez's stupidity for not taking the offer.  To the credit of other Major League Baseball teams, I'm not aware of any other offers for Ramirez.

     I'm anxious to see how the recession affects the upcoming baseball season.  How many over-priced seats and parking spaces will go empty?  How many concessions will go unsold?  Will advertising revenue dry up?  It will be interesting to see what happens when the new reality finally catches up to professional athletes.

        

     If you were looking for another reason to be disillusioned with sports in general or baseball in particular, look no further than Alex Rodriguez.  A-Rod, or should I call him A-Roid, received a 45 second standing ovation at a ceremony to commemorate the reopening of Alex Rodriguez Park at Mark Light Field at the University of Miami. 

     It's a shame that such a well-known university sees nothing wrong with using drug money to fund capital improvements for their student body.  Rodriguez's $3.9 million donation in 2003 came at the end of his admitted stint with steroids, which he claims began in 2001.  Although, for all we know his steroid use began earlier and ended later.  After all, he lied before, so why should he stop now? 

     Now for all the impressionable youth out there: cheating is wrong should never be tolerated.  Well, it's wrong unless you are going to make millions of dollars per year, and it should only be tolerated if you are going to receive money resulting from the cheating.  It doesn't seem right to me, but that seems to be how the University of Miami feels.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ar3LUghJjOiEH3nVGbkSCOARvLYF?slug=ap-rodriguez-miami&prov=ap&type=lgns

        

     A girl's basketball game in Texas has recently drawn national attention.  The game was between The Covenant School and Dallas Academy.  The Covenant School won the game 100-0, they were leading 59-0 at half-time, and as the team closed in on 100 points in the fourth quarter, many spectators and an assistant coach cheered loudly.  The Covenant School has apologized for winning by so many points, and they offered to forfeit the game.  Their coach, Micah Grimes, was recently fired after he sent an e-mail to a newspaper refusing to apologize "for a wide-margin victory when my girls played with honor and integrity."

     Personally, I find this whole situation disgraceful.  Although, my reasons appear to be in the minority.  I find it hard to believe that players from The Covenant School are being criticized for having an explosive offense and perfect defense.  Despite having a large lead, they never let up, and they executed their game plan perfectly.  As for coach Grimes, he should be proud to have a team that performed so well.

     Dallas Academy hadn't won a game in 4 years and is a small school, so it has fewer choices when building a team.  The loss shouldn't have come as a surprise, and neither should the magnitude of the loss.  Would people be making a fuss if it was 105-15? 88-6?  95-20?  At what point are you supposed to give up and stop trying because your team is vastly better?  I would never want to lose by such a lopsided margin, but I would use it as a learning experience.  I would also be angry at myself for not even getting a single point.  Maybe their team needs to practice a little more.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482825,00.html

        

     I used to be a huge sports fan, but over the years, I've really had very little interest.  I still watch the New England Patriots play on Sunday, and I check the standings to see how many wins the Boston Red Sox have, but most of the interest is gone.  When I was younger, sports seemed important.  Maybe it was because there wasn't much else going on, or because everyone I knew thought it was important.  At any rate, it has become just another distraction.

     My separation from sports also can be linked to finishing graduate school.  Nothing will turn you against professional athletes more than finishing a masters degree and struggling to find a job, while someone with poor grammar and an IQ of 70 is complaining about making only $10 million per year.  The money they earn is bad enough, but I find their sense of entitlement even more nauseating.

     Finally, I'm sick of hearing about athlete's "heroics".  They're not heroes.  They play games for money and sell their services to the highest bidder.  Do you want an example of a hero?  How about soldiers fighting abroad?  How about firefighters rushing into burning buildings?   Or better yet, how about the guy who inspired this post: Chesley "Sully" Sullenberg III.  He's the pilot who brought a plane down in the Hudson River.  His skill and quick thinking saved the lives of more than 150 people.  What's more heroic and meaningful: Saving 150 people or throwing a ball?

        

     I love music and I enjoy going to concerts.  From time to time, I also buy t-shirts that have some of my favorite bands on them.  If you're anything like me and you like music and these types of shirts, you probably know how much tickets and clothing cost, and how the prices can escalate at a concert.

     When I buy music t-shirts, I usually shop at Hot Topic which charges around $17, usually less.  If you buy these same shirts at a concert, you will easily pay $35 for a shirt, along with inflated prices for nearly every other type of merchandise you can imagine.  Some concert tickets are ridiculously priced, $8 to $10 beverages are not uncommon, then to make matters worse, the fans are getting gouged for supporting their favorite bands.

     Since band merchandise is created by the band by cutting out the middle-man and they don't have the overhead that a store would have, shouldn't they have a lower break-even point than stores?  It looks that way to me, yet they are charging more than twice the amount for their merchandise than a typical store would charge.

     It's a free country and a person should be allowed to charge as much as they want for their merchandise.  With that said, we also have the freedom to shop for the best prices.  I hope the next time you go to a concert you think twice about buying merchandise at the show and opt to buy it from a store.  I think there is something fundamentally wrong with a band gouging their most loyal fans.  Don't they already make enough money from us?

        

     When I was 15 years old, I remember how excited I was to get Use Your Illusion 1 and 2 on the day they were released back in 1991.  My favorite band, Guns N' Roses, had released a highly anticipated album, and I was one of the first people to buy it.  Appetite For Destruction sold more copies, but Use Your Illusion 1 and 2 were my favorite.  How could you not love songs like Coma, Dead Horse, Estranged, Live and Let Die, Knockin' On Heaven's Door,  You Could Be Mine, Don't Cry, November Rain, Garden of Eden, Civil War, and The Garden?  Each CD was strong from beginning to end.

     In 1994, the band released The Spaghetti incident, which was a collection of covers, followed by Live Era, a 2 CD live album.  Due to band members leaving, and what I think is Axl Rose's tendency to be a perfectionist, there hasn't been a complete release of new music since 1991.  There's been a song here or there, such as a cover of "Sympathy For the Devil" or "Oh My God" which was released for a movie soundtrack.  Despite these sporadic releases, all we really heard were rumors of an upcoming album and songs that were leaked on occasion.

     Well, after all the speculation and rumors, it's official.  Guns N' Roses will be releasing Chinese Democracy on November 23rd, 2008, and the first single, "Chinese Democracy" was just released a few days ago.  I had already heard live versions of "Chinese Democracy", "IRS", and "Madagascar", and I thought all three songs were terrific.  What I was looking forward to was hearing the finished product.  I imagine that Axl Rose was meticulous while putting this album together, and I had also read that there were some industrial influences in the music.  I was intrigued to say the least.

     There are 14 songs on Chinese Democracy, and I heard the first single today.  The song "Chinese Democracy" is a very good one, and I like it, but I think it will take long-time GNR fans a while to get used to the new sound.  At times, it feels over-produced, and it almost sounds like a Marilyn Manson song.  I like Marilyn Manson, so I didn't mind this much, but after hearing the live version of Chinese Democracy, without all the bells and whistles, you're kind of left wondering why there's so much going on production wise.  It's a great, driving rock song, and I think it would have benefited more from a stripped-down approach than the over-production.  With that said, I still like i, and I'm looking forward to hearing the other 13 tracks.

        

      I get annoyed when I make large purchases and the cashier just swipes my card and hands it back to me without even making an attempt to look at the signature.  Even if they do look at the signature, what does that really prove?  For the life of me, I can't understand why all merchants don't require a picture ID when using a credit card.  I'm surprised this has never been pushed by the credit card industry.  Think about all the credit cards that are stolen each year and how much money credit card companies lose on fraudulent purchases.  Couldn't this loss be significantly reduced by requiring picture ID?

     Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any interest in requiring consumers to present a picture ID with their credit cards.  Instead, I fear things are getting worse.  With the proliferation of self-check registers, stores where you swipe the credit cards yourself, and easy pass, it's getting a whole lot easier to profit from credit card theft.  Rather than being more careful, credit card companies are embracing payment methods that are risky to consumers and their bottom line.

        

     I'm making a list of the great rock and roll performers of all time.  Here is a list of legendary rockers: Madonna,
Grandmaster Flash, Blondie, Percy Sledge, The O'Jays, Brenda Lee, Paul Simon, James Taylor, Bonnie Raitt, Earth Wind and Fire, The Jackson 5, Bee Gees, Etta James, The Platters, Bobby Darin, Stevie Wonder, The Supremes, Smokey Robinson, Ricky Nelson, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Simon and Garfunkel, and Sam Cooke.   Tell me that isn't a great list of rockers!  There's just one problem: They're not rockers!

     The list you just read is a small sampling of the "rockers" who are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  I thought it was crazy when The O'Jays were inducted last year, and when I saw that Run D.M.C. is nominated for next years class, I had enough.  These performers would all belong if it were the Music Hall of Fame, or the Rap Hall of Fame, or the Country Music Hall of Fame, but I really don't see how you can include them in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  Although, I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

     If you induct rock acts into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, who are you going to attract?  If you said rock fans, you're correct.  You will attract rock fans almost exclusively.  Now, if you throw in some rap, country, R&B, soul, and pop, then all of a sudden, there is a little something for everybody.  You succeed in broadening your appeal to a larger audience, but you fail miserably in paying respect to rock music.  Although, repecting the music is probably the least important thing on their list.  We all know the first is making as much money as possible.

        

     I used to be a big sports fan in general, and a huge baseball fan in particular.  I would remember staying up until 1:30am to watch the last place Boston Red Sox play the last place Anaheim Angels when I was in high school.  Even though the games may not have been the best, I was a true fan and I went out of my way to see as many Red Sox games as I could.

     Over the years, things changed for me.  I didn't see sports as being important, as I had before.  Finishing graduate school coincided with my souring on baseball.  Just around the time I graduated with a masters degree, we were experiencing a recession and Major League Baseball was experiencing labor problems.  At the same time I was struggling to find an entry level job to pay my student loans, I was reading about uneducated millionaires complaining about receiving only $10 million dollars to play a game.  I became disgusted and essentially stopped watching sports.  Every now and then I would check scores, and if a headline caught my eye I would read it, but the days of actually following sports were over.

     Let's fast forward to 2008.  I had finished some work and I decided to catch game 6 of the American League Championship Series between the Boston Red Sox and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.  I didn't know what channel it was on, so I turned to the local FOX affiliate, but the game wasn't on.  Next I changed the station to NBC, then CBS, then ABC.  Finally, I checked ESPN and saw highlights, so I knew the game was on.  Shortly after my channel surfing was finished, someone suggested I check TBS.  I thought it was a ridiculous suggestion, but lo and behold, the game was indeed on TBS. 

     I was surprised to say the least.  TBS is a popular cable station, but it is cable none the less.  Why would you put the League Championship Series on a cable station, rather than a network that is free to everyone?  My guess: Money.  If I were to look into why TBS was chosen, I assume I would find out that TBS was willing to pay the most money to televise the games.  What shocks me is that Major League Baseball was dumb enough to take it.  Sure, you can make a few more bucks with TBS, but isn't there something to be said for having your product available to as many viewers as possible?  Is this how loyalty to your team is rewarded?

     There has been a lot written about how Major League Baseball has had difficulty capturing the imagination of younger fans.  With that said, isn't it counter-productive to have young fans follow a team all season long, then shut them out at the end of the year?  This process began with the late start times for post season games, and their choice of networks has compunded the situation.  As Major League Baseball's fan base greys and attendance suffers, they should take some time to ponder the mistakes they have made.