Saturday, December 29, 2012

Bye Bye 2012

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.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Election Elation

    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 20th 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."

Friday, August 31, 2012

Republicans Say Women Are Great

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? 

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Hot Enough For You?

    "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.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Nowhere To Hide

     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. 

Monday, June 4, 2012

It's A Search Engine, Stupid

    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.


Sunday, May 13, 2012

Exclusive: Republican Party Linked to Porn Biz

     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?


Friday, April 27, 2012


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."

Friday, April 13, 2012

Set My People Free From ...?

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 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.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Out-Tebowing Each Other

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.

New Bob Newhart Video

Check out Bob Newhart's first internet video by