No offense, Catholics. Honest.

Why am I glad I'm not Catholic?

I could never be associated with a religion that's sensitive enough to waste time boycotting movies. I really don't think "Angels and Demons" is going to affect your bottom line. If anything, you're just giving it free promotion. I didn't even know "Dogma" was out until the Church got involved.

I'd prefer my religion to tackle issues that were of some importance, like world hunger or anything that's not boycotting movies. Plus, my personal religion doesn't look nearly as evil as Catholicism does. I'm not saying that Catholicism itself is evil (although I'm certainly capable of doing it), but any church that has demons posted up on its houses of worship or uses models of its savior dying on a cross as it's symbol of worship doesn't really say to me, "God is Love." It says something more along the lines of "You don't want none of what I'm worshipping, bitch."

Not only that, this is the same church that kicked out a girl, her mother, and a doctor for aborting the girl's pregnancy. Now, that's not news because the Catholic Church generally frowns on this. What makes this exceptional is that the girl was two things, none of which were "loose." What she was was "12" and "raped." Oh, and the rapist got to keep being Catholic, because he only violated a girl and stole her innocence. It's not like he aborted a baby or used condoms or anything like that.

It just really seems like The Vatican's decisions aren't grounded in the real world at all, and what's scarier is that people still look to them for guidance. People didn't keep looking to Bush for guidance after it became clear that he was going to drive America off a cliff. That would be stupid, because if someone keeps giving you bad advice, generally you point out their historic battles with speaking English or swallowing pretzels.

But they don't do that for the Catholic Church. They just keep right on agreeing with the Pope, never questioning him when he says, "God doesn't want you to use condoms. He wants you to trust that you just won't get AIDS."

I know, he's supposed to preach abstinence and that's good. But in 2009 (or even 1984), it's just not realistic to expect that people are going to stay abstinent just because the Pope said so. If it were that easy, then "Just Say No" and tersely worded, non-binding resolutions would work. Besides, when the Pope was a kid, he was too busy harassing Jews to worry about pre-marital sex. Yet, his wealth of experience in the world of teenage sex is the basis for his argument.

Besides, when you take a leap of faith, you usually don't do that by doing something stupid. A leap of faith is something like, trusting that your business plan is going to work, not placing your genitals into a pot of boiling water and expecting God to turn it into ice.

Now, while Catholics don't seem to have developed the part of the brain that tells the difference between what's smart and what's ridiculous, they do understand how capitalism works.

If you frequent a business that historically picks the wrong side, despite what common sense is telling them to do (like not denouncing slavery or the Holocaust, for instance), generally, you don't go to those places anymore. Back in the 90s, the state of Georgia stopped flying the rebel flag on government buildings just because the NCAA said they weren't going to bring the tournament and it's hundreds of millions of dollars in windfall while those flags were up. It's just that simple, because money trumps all sorts of personal beliefs about Black people being three-fifths of one white man.

Well, why can't Catholics do that? Why can't Catholics go, "You know, God gave us brains so we could think, but why doesn't Holy Mother Church ever use them? Why do they keep making us look stupid? And what's with this ash on my forehead?" If more Catholics actually questioned their Church or left it for one that contained less halfwits, the Catholic Church would probably make some changes.

The Vatican understands that to keep it going, they have to have people coming and donating to the building fund (or is that just Black churches?). It's a business. And they know that their customers aren't going anywhere. They've been guilting Catholics into showing up for generations and because of that, it's okay for them to say "We'd rather keep the rapist around than the abortionist." Now, if they were saying that to a room full of empty pews, it might occur to them that people want their religious leaders to understand that the year is 2009, no 1409.

God wants you to think. That's why he gave the ability to do so. If he wanted you to blindly follow, he would have made you a dog. Or an angel. And I know you've grown attached to having genitals.

Why CBS shouldn't air sports

It's bad enough that CBS has the most boring NFL pregame show anywhere. Yes, even more boring than NBC, and they've got Bob Costas and Cris Collingsworth. I can't even name a prime-time show that CBS airs now that King of Queens is off.

Just being boring isn't enough, though. Now, they've got to show us that they're inept.

I don't know who the genius was who thought that one station could juggle two separate games and make everyone happy, but at some point, the intelligence that God gave birds has to kick in, right?

North Carolina had things with Gonzaga in hand, probably three...maybe four minutes into the game. Meanwhile, Kansas and Michigan State were close throughout. It hadn't occurred to me that I might want to see anything in the Kansas/Michigan State game in the first half, because I wanted to see North Carolina. I've been a Tarheels fan for a long time.

But when the second half started running down and Kansas and Michigan State were still tied up, I expected CBS to switch back over to their game, because it was coming down to a close finish. You know, the kind of situation where legendary highlights are made. Big shots, hustle plays, important rebounds; the stuff that they'll replay 20 years from now.

CBS chose to keep showing UNC/Gonzaga. UNC spent the whole second half leading by 20. I really don't think we were going to miss anything.

The six minute mark goes by in the Kansas/Mich. St. game. Four minutes. Two minutes. We're still looking at Carolina while the score is knotted at 60 in the other game. Finally, Michigan State goes up by two in a big play that I'll have to turn to ESPN to see. My bracket is taking another hit and I can't even see why.

It's not like Gonzaga had closed to within five points or the other game was the Grizzlies and the Clippers. It was another tournament game, and it had a better finish than the one that I was stuck with.

Finally, at the 36 second mark, CBS switches back to Kansas/Mich. St. Not only that, right when they switch, a timeout is called and they start to go to commercial. Thankfully, for us, they decide to let us watch the timeout. For those who were wondering about the nailbiter we switched from, Carolina's was still up by 20.

Kansas is at the line to shoot free throws. First free throw is good. Second free throw might have been good, but we'll never know, because CBS had to hurry up and get back to that back-and-forth UNC/Gonzaga game. That's right, they switched back in the middle of the free throws at brought Kansas to within one. Because CBS didn't want us to miss UNC closing in on a 30 point lead.

It doesn't even matter what happened next, because I'm fairly certain that CBS doesn't want me to see it anyway. I can't remember if I even saw the end of the game because I blacked out after those free throws. My brain was saving me from an anger stroke. Good look, brain.

I just know that in the end, Michigan State won. It would have been nice to see it.

I hate you, CBS. Next time, just play quietly in the corner while the big boys at ESPN or Fox do show you how to broadcast sports.

The Twitter Test Run

I know two people with diamonds in their teeth and neither of them are black.

NFL's "Increase the Peace" Movement

Because quarterbacks, not children, are our most delicate resource, the NFL owners have invented the Bradymobile to keep them safe from human contact. It's just like the Popemobile, except it's also safe from missile attacks and bad breath. (Pictured: Bradymobile prototype. Not pictured: Lost sense of athletic pride.)

Their efforts are aimed at making this violent, hard-hitting game safer. They have decided that it's not the intensity and hard hits that keep fans coming back, but instead the intellectualism. It's hard to appreciate the human chess on the field when the players keep hitting each other. In a similar story, the UFC decided to outlaw punching, kicking, and wrestling so cage-fighting isn't so rough on its fighters. Inspired by the movement, the US military is considering adding pillows to the inside of their bombs to make war safer.

And why this sudden focus on safety? Because the owners want to add two games to the season, believing that no place is safer for NFL players than being in the line of fire. Commissioner Roger Goodell said, "This game is entirely too dangerous and violent, so let's make them play it more." It's like giving out bulletproof vests so people can get shot in the chest more often.

I get some of the changes that have been made in the past, banning horse-collar tackles, shots to the head, not letting people drive trucks onto the field, the logical stuff. But if they ban the "wedge" of kickoff returns they might as well ban offensive linemen and fullbacks. And to say that defensive players can't lunge at quarterbacks when they're on the ground is just plain crazy. They might as well start saying that players can't use their legs to run, because that rule change goes against the defense's basic nature.

See, there's only three things that defensive players know how to do: "get the quarterback," "dive on the ball," and "turn your hips." Basically, this rule change is taking back 33% of everything defensive players know how to do. What are they supposed to fill that brain space with, "making it rain?" You're confusing them and it's not going to make anyone happy when defensive players start standing in front of the quarterback in a daze, because they can't decide whether to hit the guy or throw money at him.

There have already been instances where sacks were missed because the defensive player wasn't sure if he'd be penalized for making the play, and that was before the rule change. After the rule change, when a defensive player is blocked to the ground within a two feet of the quarterback, instead of making a play from his knees, he might as well take a leisurely nap on the field until the whistle is blown. The quarterback's knees are protected and the defensive player is refreshed for the next play.

The way they're headed, they might as well start having quarterbacks throw from behind a concrete wall. Soon, the owners are going to outlaw tackling and blocking and instead rely on a ornate system of verbal cues to trick opposing players into falling down. Maybe hypnotizing players into handing the ball over when the safe word is uttered. It's just a matter of time before a lineman snaps and starts running in circles because he doesn't know what to do.

Yeah, it's a moneymaking venture, and I understand that they want to keep the players safe, so as to better exploit them by adding games, but they also need to remember that it's football. It's a game that's dependent on hard-hitting, intensity, and physicality. The pattern of rule changes is taking all of that away. Take tackling, shoving, pushing, and hard glares away from football and what are you left with?

Catch.

And I don't think anyone will be willing to pay $40 to watch muscled-up men peacefully throw a ball to each other.

It's supposed to be violent. It's supposed to hurt. That's why people play it. If the owners don't want their players to get hurt, then they got into the wrong business. Maybe they should put their money into that professional curling league or try to get a TV deal for badminton. It would be worth it to see if the censors would allow them to say "shuttlecock" on television.

Why Barack-etology is a good thing

I really don't think that the free world is an anymore trouble than it already is if Barack Obama takes some time out to fill out a bracket for ESPN. Really, if some real damage was going to go down, it was going to happen regardless of that missing half hour. Hell, I bet he spends more time than that in the bathroom.

Actually, I'm more impressed that this man can find the time to be this knowledgable about college basketball while rebuilding the economy, getting us out of Iraq, curing cancer, walking on water, all the stuff that he does. It's not like he's falling behind on things. If he was turning in his budgets late and missing press conferences because he was copying someone else's notes at the last minute, the complainers might be onto something. But he's getting everything done, so why are we bothering him? If anything, we should be impressed with his time-management skills.

Most of us can't even make it to work on time every day and we're worried about what he's doing.

At the very least, this helps him relate to people more, because it shows that he's just as sports-crazy as the rest of us. The only difference between me and Barack Obama right now is that he has the respect and admiration of a nation and I picked California to beat Maryland against my better judgment. Really, at the time of this writing, I'm doing better than he is.

Republicans are just jealous they didn't think of this kind of thing first, because George W. Bush or Sarah Palin would kill for this kind of publicity. Barack Obama filling out his bracket on ESPN or actually getting upset that OUR Beloved Bulls were getting beat by the Washington Wizards are the kinds of things that will endear us to him. When he leaves office, assuming his presidency isn't a complete disaster, this sort of thing will make us think about him and smile. Truly the People's President, Barack Obama.

Bush, on the other hand, we forgot about him while he was still sitting the White House. And this guy owned the Texas Rangers once upon a time. But he was so busy clearing brush off of his ranch in Crawford that he forgot to show us what a real guy he was. People always talked about what a great guy he was, but we never saw it. Maybe if he had publicly done things like this, we would have looked at him a little differently. I'm not saying we would have supported all of his policies, because I just don't think that repealing our civil liberties was a smart idea. But maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have looked at him like he had no idea what was going on in the real world.

Bush's friends always talked about Bush being "the kind of guy you could have a beer with," but we never really saw it. In one 10-minute segment, Barack showed us that he IS that guy, because even though he's meeting with the Prime Minster of Russia while we're breaking our back for some boss that we don't like, we know that at 11 PM, when SportsCenter comes on, our President is just another sports-obsessed boob. Just like us.

I'm still not calling him "Money."

Shocking news: Floyd Mayweather, Jr. is preparing for a return to boxing.

Really?

Like we didn't know this was coming. Floyd Mayweather, who retired in June 2008, is looking to make his return July 11 on HBO, according to sources close to the pint-sized pugilist. This is a complete shocker to people who believe there's a chance that the sun might not come up the next day or look for things to fall in other directions when they drop them. These are the people who were fooled by Michael Jordan's first retirement.

I'm not an expert on acting, but I'm pretty sure that he wasn't going to make a career of anything like that. He wouldn't have been able to handle the life of a wrestler, because that requires things like humility and doing what you're told and we know he's not built for that. And my knees are bruised from my nightly prayers that he wouldn't release a rap CD. I guess he could have been an analyst for one of the networks, but as we've seen from Roy Jones, Jr. over the years, it can be hard to stop talking about yourself.

So that just left a return to boxing, because, let's face it: He's only 32. He's still got a couple of years left before the hand speed and reflexes start to leave him and his last fight was only about 15 months ago, so he's still in good enough shape to get back in the ring. It's not like he's Evander Holyfield, inviting speculation that he's actually going to die in the ring (or maybe that's just my speculation).

Apparently, he's looking to face anyone out there, except Oscar De La Hoya, which makes me wonder. Yeah, he won the fight (split decision), but he retired before they could fight again. That sounds like fear to me. And since there's no chance that he'll fight Big Show for real, we'll have to settle for the rumors that he wants Manny Pacquiao. Good luck with that.

I'd say "welcome back," Floyd Mayweather, but that would mean that I believed you were gone.

Deconstructing Limbaugh's Fairy Tale Land

Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail.

Rush Limbaugh also claims that it's okay to make insane statements like that, because all of the Bush-haters wanted Bush to fail in Iraq.

The fact that Rush wants Obama to fail means that he wants the country to become flat broke. He wants the worst for all Americans. He wants us all, all races, parties, creeds, colors, and waist sizes, to eat dirtbombs for dinner from the underside of the overpass. Because that's the only thing that can happen if this President does fail. If Obama fails, we're pretty much screwed.

Well, most of us are. The ones who aren't screwed will most likely will be screwed as soon as the ones who are screwed realize that they've still got lights and food. Then, the words "Eat the rich" will re-enter our collective mindscape.

Well, we probably won't attack (all of) the rich, but why does he want Obama to fail? What could his motivation be for wanting something like that? It's simple, really. He wants a Republican to save us. Forget everything that he has to say about his reasons. That's all it is, partisan politics. Except he's not an elected official and no one with any good sense listens to him, anyway.

But it's just sour grapes because a Democrat won the Presidency and a Black one, at that. Because what Rush is saying is not even the same thing as everyone else being against Bush. For one, Obama was democratically elected.

Stealing the election was forgotten after 9/11, though. George W. Bush had the world on his side, simply by being an inept President. His historic unwillingness to read memos allowed him to fall face first into the goodwill of the entire planet. Except for the country that we were about to attack, understandably. It would have been really stupid if Afghanistan was inviting the ass-kicking. Or incredibly perverted, but some people are into that.

But then, he pissed it all away by saying, "No, wait. Let's go to Iraq, instead. It's an open and shut case because Iraq and Afghanistan are both, well, you know...turn around again, and that's why we Iraq is the greater threat." We were so baffled by how this man hadn't drowned himself in the toilet that we forgot to stop this from going down.

The thing about Iraq was, it's not that we wanted to LOSE in Iraq, it's that we wanted to LEAVE Iraq. That might be a failure for Bush, but who cares about his ego when 40,000 of our soldiers are walking around America alive and in one piece (4,000 killed, 36,000 injured). Maybe Bush should have tried fighting the war that we were willing to fight. Sorry that all Americans weren't so easily distracted by the endless oil profits that we weren't going to get a dime of. How selfish of us for not wanting to sacrifice our limbs for Halliburton's stockholders. All we were able to see was the futility in throwing lives and dollars at an unwinnable war.

Obama's not waging an ill-advised and unpopular war; Obama's trying to fix the economy, and I'm pretty sure that at least 90% of Americans and the rest of the world want the damn thing fixed. Yeah, Rush, it's exactly the same thing...like Fox News and actual news are exactly the same thing.

If he succeeds, if everything works out like he wants, the economy has a shot at working again. People will have jobs and money; the streets will flow with milk, honey, and the tears of the Republican faithful. So by saying that you don't want that to happen, that means you, Rush Limbaugh, don't want me personally to have a job. You're not even offering alternative or viable solutions, because if tax cuts were the answer, they would have worked when Bush was still spectacularly failing at being President. You're just being a dick and not even for a good reason.

Fuck you, Rush Limbaugh. I want for your show to get cancelled and for you to get lost in Southwest Atlanta. Clearly, we all can't all get what we want in life.

But feel free to keep attacking Michael Steele and Arlen Specter.

T.O. in Buffalo? Didn't see that coming

Wow. Buffalo. And don't be fooled by that fake smile over there, because he does not look happy about it. Might as well have exiled T.O. to Siberia. Or Kansas City. On the bright side, no one's going to see him screw up anything out there. No one saw that coming, mostly because no one even remembered that Buffalo had an NFL team.

So, yeah, Terrell Owens signed a one-year, $6.5 million deal with the Bills. The deal validates the wild claims that agent Drew Rosenhaus made when he said that T.O. would have a deal within the week, although, judging from the look on T.O.'s face during his press conference, I don't think either one of them would consider this a "win." Personally, I believed that Owens would be out of work for a few more months, at which point, teams would no longer be influenced by ESPN's "T.O. Hater Brigade", and realize that at least 15 of them had nothing to lose by signing Owens.

After all, Terrell Owens, love him or hate him, is still one of the NFL's best receivers. The people who dispute that are generally haters, like Bob Ryan or Skip Bayless. In 2008, Owens was 13th in yards (1.052), tied for 28th in receptions (69, with Randy Moss), and tied for 5th in touchdowns (10, with Tony Gonzales and Lance Moore). And that's with Tony Romo-Simpson as quarterback.

Conversely, the Bills had 14 passing TDs total.

But Terrell Owens isn't considered an "elite" receiver anymore. His critics claim that he has "lost a step," but Stephen A. Smith said it best this morning when he said that Owens "has lost a step for him," but he's still as good as everyone else. I really don't see how you can afford not to look at a guy like that, especially when your team had trouble scoring points like, say...the Rams or the Bengals. Because if your team is scoring less than the Lions did (27 TDs in 2008), you can't really be that choosy about who you have on your roster. If you were that particular, you'd probably have better players.

And as far as who's going to get the ball more, Lee Evans or Terrell Owens, let me say this: That's a problem most teams wish that they had. It's not the same thing as saying, who's going to get the ball more, Lee Evans or Josh Reed? If you don't know the answer to that quesiton, you're also too slow to realize that teams now have to change the way they defend this team. Yeah, the Bills are so stupid for signing T.O.

It's nice to know that your favorite team is taking a moral stand against hated NFL players, but most of those teams will be doing it in an empty stadium. That's one thing Buffalo won't have in 2009.

Rihanna and the online petitions that control her

Today, Rihanna told a judge that she didn't want a temporary restraining order against Chris Brown. Also, the rumor mill says that they are back together. This is proof that celebrities are just like regular people, because she's being just as stupid about all this is the trash you see on daily talk shows.

I don't say that to say that Rihanna is stupid, because those online ads say that her IQ is at least 119. But this is a stupid move and it puts her in the same category as other woman that we call "stupid" or "dumb bitch" when they choose to stay with the man who are beating them. And Rihanna didn't just get abused; people come out of bar fights with less damage than she got. She can never think she's better than anyone, because this proves that she's just like everyone else.

But, hey...if that's what she wants to do, she's mostly grown. You can't tell a 20 year-old anything, and having been 20, I can say that. When you're 20, you think you know everything, without remembering that your main barometer for intelligence is other 20 year-old kids who know just as little as you do. It's like saying you're more attractive than a room full of horribly disfigured people.

Overall, though, I think she'll be alright. I don't think Chris Brown is serial abuser, although I must admit that all I know about him is that he worked over Rihanna pretty good and that "No Air" was a terrible song. He might not hit her again, but why would you want to take that chance? Having said all of that, it's really none of my business, but you know how we loudmouths are: We just can't help ourselves.

I do know that ultimately my words won't mean anything, because Rihanna and Chris Brown don't know me and even if they did, I'm sure my opinion would rank somewhere after the guy who cleaned Rihanna's blood out of that rented Lamborghini. I'm sure she would agree when he says, "Damn, she got fucked up!" But since I'm out of the loop, my opinion simply doesn't matter to them. This is the attitude that the creators of Don't Do It Rihanna should keep in mind.

This is a real website that is built around the idea that the inner workings of Rihanna's life are subject to the same influences as "Dancing With the Stars." People who go here can sign a petition that believes itself to be a legally binding document that can keep Rihanna away from Chris Brown. The tagline actually says, "Sign the petition to keep Rihanna away from Chris Brown." It's great, really. You don't have to get manhandled by security in the VIP to know what's like to get brushed off by Rihanna. All of her disdain in the comfort of your very own home.

I understand the intent behind it, but maybe it's the firm language that makes me laugh. The site is determined to be taken seriously, but at the same time, online petitions aren't legally binding in any way and I don't even think one has ever been useful in a worthy cause. Let's face it: online petitions couldn't even get people to think about impeaching George W. Bush and he's, quite possibly, a war criminal and for at least four years, wasn't even the real President.

I understand that her fans want to show her some support, because as abuse victims can tell you, once you go back with a guy who's split your lip, it's just a matter of time before your forehead is going through the coffee table. You just never really know how these things will go. But this is a complete waste of time. She's not going to seriously consider the contents of this site. Her life, or anyone else's, is not up for public debate. If it was, we wouldn't have so many fat women in halter tops and visible thongs in the summertime. We all know that that there has been a ton of "public debate" on that, and it hasn't changed anything, despite the benefits for the "greater good."

If you really want to help Rihanna, knowing her on a personal level would help. And seeing how she doesn't seem to even be listening to people close to her on this, what good is the petition going to do? It's a deeply personal matter and I don't remember any part of her public statements that said, "I welcome your unsolicited advice on how I should handle this situation." I know people care, but the reality is that all we can do is pray for her, if you're a spiritual person. Do that instead, so you can get back to getting laid off from your jobs with a clear mind.

Overre-Shaq-ting

Everyone has that friend who can't take it when someone calls them out. Everyone has that friend who takes it too far after someone dared be critical of them, whether it's good-natured teasing or pointing out a mistake they've made. Usually, this friend gets abandoned at some point, because it's no fun having that person around. Or, one of his friends might pull him to the side and say, "Is your period over yet, sweetie?"

The problem with Shaquille O'Neal is, he's 7'1" and 350 lbs. If he ever had a friend who was that brave, that friend is probably no longer with us. But just because that friend was obliterated by Shaq's gargantuan rage doesn't change the fact that Shaq is as sensitive as most men right after your girlfriend brings on that "special feeling."

When Shaq starts overreacting like he did, it makes me forget that he's a grown-up, because he lalways crosses the line. He can't just do "verbal jousting," or even admit that he had it coming. No, his pride is wounded, so he responds to the criticism of his flop from Stan Van Gundy by essentially saying, "You contribute nothing to conversations and no one will miss you when you die." Couldn't he have just pointed out that he looks like Ron Jeremy like the rest of us do? Was all of that really necessary?

Good thing Stan didn't say anything about free throws. Shaq probably would have run him over with the team bus.

I heard what SVG said and to me, it all sounded like he was just ribbing Shaq, anyway. But you know what? SVG was 100% right, because everytime Vlade Divac would flop against Shaq, here goes Shaq complaining about floppers again. He can't be mad because people want to talk about it. After all, it's not every day that a 350-pound man goes flying like that outside of a wrestling ring. But instead of Shaq just taking it on the chin, he got personal.

And stupid, because I don't know what being a "frontrunner" has to do with anything. LeBron James' love of the Yankees and Cowboys when he's from Ohio is "frontrunning." I don't know what the hell Shaq was talking about. When people stop making sense, that means they're on the verge of a temper tantrum.

Then, he tried to say that what he did wasn't actually flopping, before getting up the next day to talk to Michael Wilbon for an hour about how it still wasn't flopping. "I was just trying to take a charge...and sell it a little bit, so the ref would be sure to call it." Shaq sold the thing so well, I thought he was back in WCW. But that's not flopping, right? It's "embellishing." Oh, I'm sorry. "Embell-Shaq-ing."

But because Shaq is so beloved (I actually do like Shaq) and can do no wrong, people have tried to make excuses for him by saying that SVG questioned his manhood, as if that justifies the things that he said in response. But let's just say that SVG did question Shaq's manhood, for the sake of argument. Didn't Shaq just do the same thing to Chris Bosh on Friday night, or did I miss the part where calling a man "RuPaul" turned into a compliment suggesting "masculinity?" And how can anyone forget the "Sacramento Queens" comment? Comparing Penny Hardaway to Fredo Corleone? "Kobe, tell me how my ass tastes?" Really, with that last one, maybe we need to question your manhood, Shaq.

And the questioning starts with this: Are you a grown-up, Shaq? Because grown-ups don't react that way to what's clearly a joke. Sometimes, you just have to take it, not fly off the handle like Tommy from "Goodfellas." Will it help if we just start calling him "Spider Van Gundy?" Emptying a clip into him for getting in a good shot on you? Wow, Tommy, you really showed him.

I hope Shaq doesn't get mad at me for writing this. I'd hate for him to respond by burning my house down.

Terrell Owens: Cut by the Cowboys

At 12:05 AM, ESPN reporter Michael Smith broke the news that the Dallas Cowboys were releasing Terrell Owens.

Terrell Owens has been the NFL's most polarizing figure not named Michael Vick in a long, long, time. His talent can't be denied, but it doesn't stop people from begging for him to stop acting like a little girl who's not getting the prettiest dress for Easter services.

So where does he go from here? Popular wisdom would probably say the Oakland Raiders, because they take everybody that no one else wants. Truthfully, it's too rough of an economy to have a reputation like he does and to be jobless at the same time. The news just broke a half hour ago, so it's really too soon to predict where he'll wind up, if anywhere.

The man can still play, though. Word is that he's faster now than he's ever been. And he still racked up 1,052 yards and 10 TDs in 2008 at age 35. Like Shaquille O'Neal did for two days this week, the man is defying Father Time. Still, he's been a headache over the years.

Not being able to find a taker wouldn't surprise me, but at the same time, some half-wit GM taking a chance on him wouldn't shock me, either.

My prediction, though? The first team that he's telling Drew Rosenhaus to call: The Washington Redskins. Baltimore wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility, either. Either way, I'm sure Cris Carter is dancing in the streets right now.

Jay Cutler: It could also be a girl's name

So Jay Cutler is upset because the Denver Broncos entertained the idea of trading him. In other news, Jay Cutler believes that the entire city of Denver is resting on his shoulders and that trading him is such utter folly that even to discuss it is laughable.

Jay Cutler should just quit crying and act like a man about this. It's the nature of the business he chose to be in. You think old people cry just because their kids put them in a home? Of course not, because they knew that this was part of the deal when they decided to beat their kids for not mowing the lawn in a checkerboard fashion like they were told. It's just something that comes with the situation, like tiger trainers losing limbs.

You don't get mad at the hooker for burning you, do you? After all, you were the one that chose to sleep with her. You knew the risks when you decided to get involved with her in the first place. And since you've already gotten burned once, you might as well go ahead and keep sleeping with her on Sunday afternoons like you'd been doing.

I don't know why he was looking at a business organization for loyalty, because those are the same organizations that mysteriously "reorganize" when it's time for a large group of people to hit retirement age. There is no loyalty in big business. And now that the Broncos have a new coach who worked with the quarterback that they were trying to get, it only made sense to try to see what they could do about getting Matt Cassel. Sorry about your feelings, Jay Cutler; we thought you were a man.

And what was Jay Cutler's logical follow-up to these actions? In a fit of rage, he decided that he wanted to be traded because they were looking to trade him. I guess because he looks like a seven-year old, he decided to act like a seven-year old, too. Does he drop out of kickball when he doesn't get to go first?

The idea of getting traded is just something that happens unless your name is on this recently invented list: LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Adrian Peterson, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning. Not even LaDainian Tomlinson is on here, and he's way better than Jay Cutler is. So just take it all in stride, Jay. There are way worse situations than this one, like no one wanting you at all or having to backup Matt Leinart. They didn't disrespect you. They didn't say that your mother has a glass eye with a fish in it or a wooden leg with a kickstand. They just talked about trading you, and they have every right to do that.

The Broncos discussed trading John Elway once, too and all it did was make him a better player. I know you don't think you're better than John Elway. Just be glad that you're in the situation you're in, because no one at all has to pay you millions of dollars to throw a dead pig at other grown men.

Is the old Shaq back?

Shaquille O'Neal is about to be 37 years old and in the past two games he's scored about 800 points and grabbed 500 rebounds. Have we seen a resurgence of the Diesel? Of course not, because the man is 37 years old and the last time an elite-level athlete fought off Father Time and returned to a prior level of greatness, the world said he was on steroids.

What really happened in these past two games? All I know is that he had a really good two games against a pair of centers that weigh 300 pounds between them. It's not like he played two games against real centers and not tall small forwards masquerading as centers. If this was 1993, neither of these guys would even be centers. Yet, in 2008, I'm supposed to be impressed that Shaq dominated them? It's like Shaq dominating Scottie Pippen: It's what he's supposed to do.

So it's not surprising that he played this way against guys who'd get muscled around trying to stop Arvydas Sabonis. What will be surprising is if he can keep up this level of play until the end of the season. And I don't think he can, unless he's discovered a real-life Lazarus Pit. He's prone to injury right now, because the older you get, the easier it is to break a hip and the alleged steroid use I just made up makes him susceptible to muscle tears and lactation.

Seems to me that he's in a healthy stretch and he's just really good against teams that don't have real centers. And his total domination of Milwaukee's Francisco Elson and Dan Gadzuric (avg. 32 ppg, 9.5 rpg this season) backs that up.

The end of the "Iverson Experiment"

Pistons 105, Celtics 95. That right there should put the "Iverson experiment" to rest.

It wasn't Iverson's fault, because he's not coaching the team. I don't know what Michael Curry's reasoning was for benching Richard Hamilton because Larry Brown was the last Pistons coach worth listening to. It could have been because he looked into Iverson's soul and saw angels flying in itl. It could have been because he was afraid Iverson would have thrown a chair at him for the demotion. Either way, it didn't do anything to improve chemistry on the floor.

The Pistons roster is one that's capable of winning a championship, which we know, because for the most part, they already did it. The main pieces of this team were on the 2004 championship team, so they've been maintaining their chemistry for five years. They know each other's strengths and weaknesses and every time they come down the floor, they already know what they want to do. Really, they're wasting money on a coach's salary, because they're doing the exact same things they were doing when Larry Brown was coach.

Allen Iverson, on the other hand, hasn't played on a team that's even been organized since he played at Georgetown. He never understood what practice was for, because what was the point? Eric Snow and Aaron McKie weren't going to get any better whether Iverson was at practice or at the strip club. Being on an organized team was going to take some getting used to.

So, because the city of Boston is now the example of how to do everything from "popularizing an annoying accent" to "buying a championship team," let's let look to them for examples on how to bring a superstar into an already-established roster. As you can see, they didn't start Stephon Marbury over Rajon Rondo, because, even though Rondo has been a pro for three years and still can't shoot, they started him anyway, because Marbury just met most of these guys in the tunnel into the arena.

Iverson should have been coming off the bench from the start. Why mess up good chemistry with a wild card? It's not like Iverson went to the Bucks, where he could shoot until his arm cramped up because no one was watching anyway. This is a team that can still contend for a title. It's going to take some time for him to find his role. Personally, I think that God caused Iverson's phantom back injury, because he was tired of watching Iverson force up shots like Derrick Coleman was next to him instead of Rasheed Wallace.

This whole thing can eventually work out, but it's just gonna take time to work Iverson in. This injury might be the best thing to happen to the Pistons, because it gives them a chance to get going in the right direction again and gives Iverson a chance to learn that their offense is more complex than just "pass it to Iverson."