An Open Letter to Mark Cuban

I try not to write about sports here, but this is the only blog I have, and until I can think of more than one sports idea every three months, this is where it goes:

DEAR MARK CUBAN,

Despite not having lived full-time in Houston since I was 20, I still feel a strong loyalty toward the city, despite its many abuses to me, during my upbringing. That sounds more overly dramatic than I meant it: my parents were lovely and my little brother only occasionally irritating, but of course the weather in Houston remains as oppressive as it does in Dallas, and the traffic situation down there makes the Dallas traffic look like a walk to the mailbox.

And yet I still feel fierce loyalties to the teams I grew up with, the Rockets and Astros, and by extension, the Texans. I believe there was another football team in Houston for some time, but I have erradicated all memory of it from my brain, due to abuse by a terrible owner-- words which, I must say, cannot be applied to you.

You are a wonderful owner. You have hired good people, let them do their jobs, you have been open with your fans and fans of your team, and your enthusiasm is purely contagious. You know your job, and are keenly aware that privilege is not a substitute for actual knowledge of the game and the team. And, most importantly, of all the professional sports franchise-owners in Dallas, you are the only one to actually allow your sports franchise to play in Dallas. Purists will surely say, "But hockey is a professional sport, too," to which I say, "Go back to Canada, you Molson-drinking moose-rider."

I know all this (except for the bit about Canada, which is hearsay) because I lived in Dallas for over ten years. Sure, part of it was in Denton, and part of it was in the remote outpost known as Sherman, but we all basically fall under the same Dallas umbrella (except for Ft. Worth, which hates you). I'm a fan of your work and of all the owners in professional sports today, you're the one who feels like he's most excited to be there. Not because of potential profits, but because you can actively affect the world around you and the culture in which you live. You know that a championship is more important than how many hot dogs you sold at concessions last week.

So when it was reported that you'd said, in a casual offhand way, that you weren't interested in buying the Astros... I was fine with it. Really, I was. Whatever your reasons, that's fine. One man owning a team in both Houston and Dallas is certainly a great sports sacrilege, akin to owning teams in both New York and Boston, or Los Angeles and San Francisco, but even if this was not your reason, it doesn't matter. You have a business to run, you got burned by the Cubs, burned by the Rangers, whatever. It's water under the bridge, and we needn't dwell on it. I didn't think you'd want the gig and your name never even really occurred to me when their previous owner announced the sale.

But the thing is, sports needs more people like you. Someone passionate about the game, not just someone who views it as an investment, or an excuse to stand next to cheerleaders. A rock star, as it were, with enthusiasm and intelligence, passion and personality. Someone Not Jerry Jones. Someone like you.

And so, even though I have only ever lived in four cities: Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and presently Seattle... I feel great confidence in suggesting the next sports team you should buy:

If there has ever been any more long-suffering, desperate, needy, and nowhere-to-go-but-up franchise, can any answer really be more obvious than the Detroit Lions?

Sure, we're all waiting for the owner of the LA Clippers to be declared insane and have his team wrested from his clutches, but you already own an NBA team and I think there's an ownership-cap on that. But if you must own a second team, it should be not baseball.... but football.

RATIONALE #1: The Detroit Lions are not in Texas. So no "sports bigamy" to borrow a term from another writer.

RATIONALE #2: The Detroit Lions play at Ford Field. And while the Ford Motor Company lacks the presence in Detroit that it used to have, MANY PEOPLE IN DALLAS DRIVE CARS. And I just don't mean, facetiously, like, "Many people in Dallas have feet," but rather, it is an impossibility for anyone to get anywhere in Dallas without a car. Sure, the train is coming along nicely, but not to the point where people are just selling their cars and travelling everywhere on foot and by bus (like they do in Seattle). They have cars, they love their cars, and they WILL drive them to Detroit. For you.

RATIONALE #3: The Lions are terrible. Do we need to remind you the state of the Mavericks when you first arrived? You love a project.

RATIONALE #4: Once a season you get to play Jerry Jones in open gladiatorial combat. Well, not personally, but your fans would plunk down $100 for that ticket, too.

RATIONALE #5: I'm not going to name names, but by and large, NFL owners are way, way more douchey than NBA owners. You, sir, are not a douche. You are a folk hero. Except for the HDnet thing.

RATIONALE #6: Within the last three years, Comerica Bank has left Detroit, relocating in Dallas. Think of this as giving something back to the community. If some businessman and entrepeneur from Oklahoma City wanted to give something back to Seattle, I certainly would not turn it down.

RATIONALE #7: Texas has no natural lakes. Michigan, I have seen on maps, has several. Two words, sir: LAKEFRONT PROPERTY. Or is that three words?

and finally...

RATIONALE #8: You would have an office in a state that borders a foreign country. Which, if I recall from the last presidential election, would give you foreign policy experience.

And honestly, not even a random passer-by on the street could do a worse job than the current Lions ownership, and you are far more experienced and passionate than some person that was just happening to pass by. You're Mark Cuban. You've got an illegal cigar RIGHT THERE IN YOUR NAME. There's nothing you can't do.

Speaking as someone who has never lived in, nor even set foot in, the beautiful state of Michigan, I feel myself and the people of this great nation would be behind such a bold move. For fortune favors the bold. And Americans favor cool guys with fortunes.

I for one look forward to your future adventures and endeavors,

Warmest Personal Regards,

Some Guy on the Internet

The Tea Party is Batshit Nuts, and That's Okay!

Eh. Ostbensibly this blog is to split time between my Inner Citizen and Inner Geekboy, but movies have been thin in '010, and even trips to the comic book store have been less than satisfying. Which is not to say I like comic books because no no no, I'd actually prefer to see naked women. Real ones. Let's just quit while we're behind here.

THE TEA PARTY AND WHY THEY'RE FUNNY.

This is not to say EVERYthing about them is funny. Quite the contrary; aspects of them are quite terrifying, like the fact that they have their traditional conservative roots coming from the same political corner as the Nazis. That and a complete ignorance of history (or else they wouldn't call themselves 'The Tea Party') is pretty much sure to seal their fate on a national level in 2012.

I mean, look. These people make Bill O'Reilly seem reasonable. And even Bill O'Reilly bombs every time he goes on Letterman, because appealing to your tiny little Krazy Kult is not the same as mainstream acceptance. And as a comic-book reading, video-game playing, theatre-reading nerd, I know a thing or two about not being able to gain universal acceptance.

So.

In 1992, Ross Perot garnered 18% of the popular vote. Or, to use a more current but less universal example, in 2006, bigoted Texas Governor Rick Perry (the Lt. Governor under then-Gov. George 'Dubya' Bush) was re-elected after receiving approx. 45% of the vote. The remaining 55% was split between the Democratic challenger (38% or so) and author/musician/activist Kinky Friedman. And so, popular sentiment would tell you, if every person who voted for Friedman, voted instead for the Democrat, then the Democrat would have won.

Which I guess makes the Perot argument kind of invalid, because it's not like liberals were voting for him, but then again this is kind of hindsight. Also I was 16 at the time.

Anyway, through all this, the Neo-Republicans bitched and yelled and screamed about "holding the party line." They all must remain unified under their ONE candidate, because "that's what being a good Republican is all about!" ... And so they all rallied behind Bush Sr., even though he was a weak President and laid the seeds of the current Iraq mess, and they all rallied behind Dole, who lacked all charisma, and they all rallied behind Dubya, even though McCain was more charismatic and had more experience, and at least in 2000, was younger than 500. They even held the party line 8 years later with McCain/Palin, even though the country had cooled on Republican shenanigans, and the party itself had trashed the man 8 years earlier. Also Palin isn't qualified to run a 7-11.

So what do we have in 2010? DISSENT. The Republican party is splitting, with the right-wing over here, and the EXTREME right-wing over there.

This is good for Democrats.

What is, of course, NOT good for Democrats, or the people in general, is the entire Tea-Party's platform, in which they feel marginalized and stepped on and not represented by our government, much like (they say) the colonials of North America circa 1776. The reason they feel marginalized is because they ARE in the margins, and their beliefs are so uneducated and outside the mainstream that they can't ever possibly hope to maintain a foothold bigger than the one they have right now. Then again, that's at a national level. In Kentucky (for example), they're actually doing alright in the polls.

Preaching the good old days, wanting to return to "Traditional American Values," and abhorring the entire popular culture. Finger-pointing. Blaming other Americans who don't share their beliefs as the only problem, and a problem that must be stopped. Uber-conservatism, led by a charismatic leader who gives good speeches but doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Hitler only grew that moustache because his handlers told him it would make him popular-- Charlie Chaplin was pretty big at the time. And while Barack Obama is educated and has a record of service going back to his formative years, Hitler was rejected from art school twice and wrote a popular book in prison in which he blamed everyone else for Germany's problems.

Meanwhile Glenn Beck used to be a drive-time morning radio DJ and has a miltary-esque flat-top haircut (the military is popular with his fans, but he has never served), and has written a lot of retarded books.

I'm just sayin'.

Basically parts of the country are completely screwed, politically... but we must remain optimistic. Granted, there are just chunks of the country ignorant to history-- no doubt a result of the Republicans slashing of education-- but the same can't be said for 100% of us.

And so, Tea Party... creepy as though they may be... means the crazy nutcases who helped put Bush over Kerry in 2004... have all left the party for Insaner Pastures.

Let the good times roll.