Amid all the hot new shows on network TV this fall, the one that has me completely addicted is Dateline NBC's 'To Catch A Predator' series.

Chris Hansen oversees a Dateline staple that apparently outdraws "The Office" 2-to-1. He leads a Friday night assault of humiliation upon men who have decided to meet up with teenage girls and boys at houses that have been rigged across the country with cameras and microphones for the purpose of recording online-predator sting operations.

These men -- the stars of this show if you will -- think they're meeting up with teens with whom they've been chatting only to realize they've ruined their freaking lives.

"Do you know who I am? I'm Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC, and we're doing a story on online predators ..."

Truckers, teachers, soldiers, doctors, lawyers (rabbis even) plead their cases with Hansen, saying their intentions were innocent. They only planned to befriend 14-year-old Amy or 13-year-old Alex.

Whatever.

Some beg. Others even cry. However, it all ends the same when they're arrested by gun-wielding officers outside the set. The stars of our hit show are legally bound and charged with actual crimes for their trouble.

What makes us watch essentially the same scene play out over and over and over? I'm absolutely fascinated by the show; however, I have significant ethical concerns regarding the means to this end. I have concerns that it's mega-bad karma to watch this show.

First, I would submit that while online predators are bad people, they're not nearly as bad as the white-collar criminals from Enron. They're not as bad as people who kill other people with guns, knives, baseball bats, etc. They're not as bad in my book as somebody who beats his wife. They're not close to as bad as any world leader who would send kids to die in an unjust war.

They're just not. Sorry. Forgive me if I don't worship children.

But, online predators are bad, very bad. There is still a pecking order in the world of shitheads, though, in my book at least, and we don't humiliate them the way this show does these online predators.

Second, I am a big believer in due process, that notion held in our 14th Amendment that suggests that everybody, good or bad, gets his or her day in court without a presumption of guilt and certainly without the slow public torture that is 'To Catch A Predator.'

Each of the alleged predators who shows up on this Dateline NBC show, which airs next at 8 p.m. Friday, by the way, is essentially presumed guilty without much context. Hansen offers chat transcripts that the audience presumes are accurate. Most of the perps end up admitting that they're sick bastards anyway.

Nonetheless, part of me thinks this construct of pop-culture justice is terribly unfair.

Third and possibly most dangerous, 'To Catch A Predator' leaves viewers with the notion that that primary online danger to your daughter or son is a bunch of computer-savvy middle-aged men.

While some middle-aged men can be dangerous online, most teens are smart enough not to engage in a face-to-face meeting with strangers. The danger parents should consider relative to online communications involving teens are those they have with each other.

Your 15-year-old daughter is less likely to be raped by some 34-year-old trucker than to be acquaintance-raped by Joey, the 16-year-old boy who walks her to school everyday, or by Ed, the upstanding football-team quarterback, who date-rapes your daughter at the prom.

The institution behind this Dateline NBC phenomenon is a Portland, Ore., outfit called Perverted Justice. The organization was started by a young help-desk employee who realized via his Yahoo! chat-room exploits that the folks preying on 14 and 15-year-olds online were never caught despite his assumption that police would be workin' the online beat to catch these creeps.

The employee was a dude named Xavier Von Erck. Now, that's not his birth name. He changed it when he was 15 from something like Phillip Eide. Either way, Xavier Von Erck is a much cooler name. Von Erck has been accused of using his organization to wage personal wars with people online, going so far as to set up some poor schmuck from Searcy, Ark., into committing adultery and then humiliating him online.

Von Erck's personal Web site -- angrygerman.com -- shows the driving force behind Dateline's 'To Catch A Predator' to be quite the, well, angry German. I personally disagree with just about everything he says on his site. In fact, I find his personal rants distasteful and, frankly, scary.

However, isn't his organization, Perverted Justice, actually fulfilling a public service?

I'd say it is to an extent. The people who do his bidding online engage chat-room trollers in conversations that end up about sex. Those folks then convince these trollers, almost always 25 to 54-year-old men, to show up at a house, where eventually they're busted and humiliated on television.

Might I add that their humiliation will soon last forever in the form of 'To Catch A Predator' DVDs?

Each big city seems to have that guy whose crusade it is to play the role of vigilante. Oklahoma City has Brian Bates, the video vigilante, who films prostitutes and johns for the purpose of humiliating the johns. Dallas had the 'Barking Dog' guy, who filmed people who urinate in public in the Greenville district for the purpose of humiliating them online. Portland and now the nation has Von Erck.

Personally, I subscribe to the Shakespearean theme of "methinks thou dost protest too much" as it pertains to these overly aggressive vigilante activists. There's a part of me that experiences deep schaudenfreude when they themselves get into a bit of trouble. According to an article posted on the radaronline.com Web site, one NBC staffer was quoted as saying that he or she often roots for the perps in the Predator series.

When I said that I loved this show, I really meant it. It's addictive, and it's great television. However, I am not under the presumption that this is some public service our world really, really needs.

While I am typically uncomfortable with public shaming, I don't mind it when it's directed toward a 41-year-old software engineer who is trying to seduce your 13-year-old daughter. That's appropriate.

However, the notion that a person can be arrested and tried and convicted on the basis of what Perverted Justice does, via the Dateline series, is pretty incredible to me. Not sure that I buy it legally or ethically.

Furthermore, these online predators aren't even the biggest problem your kids will face in terms of the possibility that they'll be molested or raped. That will probably happen via a relative, friend or teacher.

Sorry to break that news to you, but you're just going to have to be a better parent.

Nevertheless, I loves me some Dateline NBC Predator show, as I call it. You can go ahead and think less of me, but it's inescapably good TV.

I just need to take a bath afterward.

For those of you who missed it, here is Keith Olbermann's oral essay on FOX News' interview with Bill Clinton on Sunday.

Olbermann's brilliance is in top form here, but another Web site reported on Wednesday that the MSNBC pundit got a surprise in the mail on Tuesday.

It should come as no surprise that some right-wing wacko would plan on killing Olbermann. It hasn't come to this just yet, but Olbermann truly serves as the single greatest threat to the Bush administration, outside of the president's own incompetence. Olbermann has a way of connecting concepts in such a way that a third-grader can understand them yet an intellectual progressive can appreciate them.

He's dangerous because he's preaching the truth to an audience that is growing by the day.

As to the Clinton interview, right-wing bloggers have taken to coloring Clinton's face to make it seem red. Drudge used the headline "Purple-Faced Anger," but in truth Clinton's face never even turned pink. I've watched the interview several times on a color-calibrated television, and the only thing animated about the interview were Clinton's words.

Olbermann correctly points out the connection between concepts in George Orwell's "1984" and our nightly news, whereby the past is being erased for the purpose of creating a new truth -- this concept that, somehow, Clinton was actually to blame not only for 9/11 but also for the failure to catch Osama bin Laden since.

Olbermann also knows his history, comparing Bush to our 15th president, James Buchanan. However, I don't know that a direct parallel can be made considering Buchanan was to the Civil War what Clinton actually was to 9/11, the guy before the disaster.

The comparison relative to incompetence is certainly justified in my opinion, though.

Nevertheless, Clinton was right to show some anger in Sunday's interview. Truth be told, it's important that Democrats start demonstrating some emotion as we approach 2008. I think taking it as far as Vermont's Howard Dean did in 2004 is risky; however, when William Jefferson Clinton gets pissed off, particularly as it pertains to a matter of policy, he does so with righteous anger.

Righteous anger is what Olbermann is continuing to demonstrate competently.

And, righteous anger is what the Dems need desperately in 2008. I still don't see anybody in the party, outside of Bill, who can bring it with effectiveness.

Skipped breakfast this morning in order to save those calories for a bigger lunch, even though I know that's the improper thing to do in terms of diet. However, the Golden Corral on Interstate 235 (Broadway Extension) in Edmond was closed.

The sign literally said, "WE CLOSED."

Don't know if they were putting the subject and verb together in past tense, as in "We closed, but we could reopen," or if they mean it to be "We (is) closed; Good luck wit yo bad self."

Roughly five months ago, the Furr's Cafeteria in Norman closed. Sure, Norman has a Golden Corral, but I'm too cheap to pay for dinner there. I do lunch, and I only eat there to get veggies, but now that all our spinach is tainted, just who can I trust?

These are my goings.

However, we do have comings. Norman is getting a Super Target, and for that I am really excited, particularly if they're planning on including their Archer Farms grocery store with it. I used to buy groceries at the Super Target at Campbell and Coit in Richardson, and it was literally the best grocery store I have ever, ever been to.

Why is it that Target so handily kicks Wal-Mart's butt in everything but total worth?

Other comings include a pair of new TV shows that have found their way to my TiVo rotation. The first is NBC's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which is a dramedy about life on a sketch show. Done by Aaron Sorkin, this is one half "Sports Night" and one half "West Wing."

Now, I've always said that the two people who get the first slots in hell are a) the person who killed Phil Hartman (his wife) and b) the person who killed "Sports Night" (could have been Sorkin himself for all I know). However, for as brilliant as "West Wing" was, it was acclaimed. Li'l ol' "Sports Night" had a rabid, cult following, although most of us were merely TV nerds who could appreciate great, great writing regardless of the laugh track.

Anyway, I'm over it. "Studio 60" is definitely a coming.

A mild coming is ABC's "Six Degrees." With a cast damned near as renowned as "Studio 60," the winner of ABC's 9 p.m. post-Grey's slot debuted with an episode explaining the whole concept of the six degrees of separation.

We all know it, whether we associate it with Kevin Bacon or a board game or just pop culture in general. Truth is, I thought they borrowed from the concepts of "Crash" quite a bit without the premise of racial hostilities. The pilot was a series of incredible connections among a group of people, one of which was Erika Christensen, who is just a brilliant, brilliant young actress.

It also has Campbell Scott, who plays a substance-abusing photographer, an artist who gets a breath of fresh creative air via the invitation of Bridget Moynahan. The connections continue.

While the show could have been very, very far-fetched, it was actually done well. Not terribly subtle, but the potential is there. I am not sure how far this concept can be taken in terms of a network series because, at some point, these six people will know each other for real and not merely through some fateful connection.

Nevertheless, it was much better than one of my goings, ABC's "Men in Trees," which I tried to watch. Loved the first 15 minutes, and then I realized they were merely doing a piss-poor remake of "Northern Exposure."

When I say remake, I really mean remake. The show's writers literally did not try to hide what they were trying to emulate, all the way down to the bright and playful but dopey radio-station host.

If you're going to emulate something, do what the writers of "Grey's Anatomy" did when they reinvented the medical drama genre. NBC had "ER" just sitting out there as its drama franchise for 10 years, and here came ABC kickin' its butt. Anyway, don't tell me anything about Season 3 though just yet.

I'm a tad behind and, hence, need to be going ...

While many diehard television viewers were excited about ABC's Thursday night debut of "Grey's Anatomy," which truly is as brilliant a show as I have ever, ever seen, the rest of us were talking about Jim and Pam.

Last season's finale of "The Office" left most of its fans stunned. Jim actually got the cahones to make his move, and Pam seemed receptive. This was both great and terrible.

Great because it made for possibly the most memorable sitcom finale I can ever remember. Do you ever recall chatting about how a sitcom's season ended before, wondering how writers would resolve it? And, in Season 2, nonetheless?

Terrible because, historically, resolving flirtatious character romances into something more serious spells a shark-jump in primetime. Daphne and Niles should never have gotten together on "Frasier," and as far as I was concerned, it practically rendered the series unwatchable.

While there are other examples, certainly, fans of "The Office," which won the Emmy for Best Comedy -- and deservedly so, although "My Name Is Earl" is equally deserving -- were concerned that the show would already be plowing downhill in Season 3.

Never to fear.

If anything, its writers made the show even more cringe-worthy.

They moved Jim to another office, introducing a whole other group of eccentric office workers. They halted the wedding between Pam and Roy, leaving open the possibility that our empathy could even go to the rugged warehouse worker instead of our boy Jim.

And, they brushed off Jim's Season 2 approach with those words every guy has heard at one time or another.

"I think we're just drunk," Pam told him.

Damn, if I had a nickel for everytime a woman told me that.

The show's writers then put together an episode that rates as one of their finest to-date.

They outed Oscar as being gay. As you might have expected, Michael Scott was the reason behind the unintentional outing, and he handled it with the clumsy, ignorant style we've come to love.

It will be interesting to see how the show's writers evolve this season because there are now two romantic subplots, and even in the most liberal of workplaces, Michael Scott would be just one misdeed from getting the ax.

To me, the most interesting, clever thing the writers could do would be to actually develop Roy's character, to make us damn near have to choose between Jim and him for our rooting interests. Usually, the choice in such situations is clear.

If they could develop their competing love interests into something a bit more evenhanded while keeping the show as tense as it has been in its first two years, NBC's "Office" writers would be even more genius than I'd submit they already are.

While I ranted and raved about ESPN's alleged role in the OU-Oregon game and its role involving the rise of sports' importance in society, both socially and economically, I failed to praise the network for its many contributions.

No, I have not decided to apply for a job at espn.com, although that's obviously kind of a wet dream of mine, criticism or none. My hunch is that my opinions regarding the network's effect on society would pretty much eliminate me, unless they'd be able to respect my perspective and appreciate all this damned talent I have.

Instead, it's all about Keith Olbermann, who has anchored MSNBC's Countdown news program in the 7 p.m. hour (Central) since March 31, 2003. Most sports fans know Olbermann as the tag-team partner of the mighty Dan Patrick in ESPN's Sunday night edition of SportsCenter, which for a long time was like 60 Minutes to the jockhead set.

If one were to examine networks both local and on cable for a genesis of great, modern news writing, one would need look no further than SportsCenter. Olbermann and Patrick were the ambassadors of the written word to ESPN, ushering an era of great wordsmiths to the network that exists to this day. There is sincerely no better news writing, on-air, than on ESPN.

Well, except for MSNBC, now that Olbermann is there.

In the past two months, the ratings for Olbermann's Countdown have shot up, by 55 percent in August, and upwards of 73 percent through the first half of September. Meanwhile, both MSNBC and CNN as networks are on the upswing, while Fox News viewership has declined by nearly 15 percent over the same time period.

That might be explained by a shift in the opinions of middle America as it pertains to the war on terrorism, or it could mean a bigger influence from those in the blogosphere with regard to pointing progressive news consumers toward progressive newsmen. There might also be a shift in how television traffic is measured now that DVRs are so predominant among the pop-culture public.

On the other hand, it hasn't hurt MSNBC that Olbermann has gone from being a clearly progressive anchorman to the liberal version of his nemesis, Bill O'Reilly -- minus the shouting, bad writing and general jack-assedness. And, I actually like watching Bill's show.

However, Olbermann has used his bully pulpit for some of the most biting commentary I have ever witnessed on television over the past few weeks, most notably a segment on Monday in which the native New Yorker admonished the Bush administration for questioning the public's right to think.

One critic described Olbermann's angst and populist sentiment as the second-coming of Howard Beale, the fictional newsman from the movie "Network," who was mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore before announcing that he would commit suicide on his news program the very next week.

However, Olbermann's writing prowess isn't new to me as a sports fan, an avid SportsCenter watcher and journalist. His clarity and compactness with the written word is unsurpassed in television journalism. His bite and wit are unsurpassed, even by the likes of Jon Stewart, whose "Daily Show" I have loved for years, since the days of Craig Kilborn.

Nevertheless, a world of progressives hadn't witnessed Olbermann's genius, seemingly, until the anchor decided to get pissed off about the Bush administration, the so-called war on terror and everything the far right stands for. It was like he morphed into the voice of the thinking progressive, not merely the casual news viewer who happens to vote Democrat, but the viewer who can understand references to Voltaire and words like "apoplexy."

I'm not sure if Olbermann's change in direction, his change of approach was purposeful, the result of a focus group's study; however, it has most certainly been effective in terms of the book. Personally, I've gone from being a casual watcher to a five-day-a-week TiVoer, watching bits and pieces everyday and catching up on weekends.

This is hardly a critical blog entry because as a progressive, I appreciate his positions on most all topics. And, as a writer, I respect the guy beyond comprehension.

May his swift success stay on the upward trend.

It's not my intention to usurp this space with a daily discourse on sports. I tired of sports-related message boards years ago when I discovered that they all degenerate into your-school-sucks palaver.

Nor do I make it a habit of making sports predictions because if I were any good at that, I'd just become a gambler and put my money where my mouth is. Sports are a hobby and a release for the millions of fans who follow them; however, there is no question that sports at the players' level -- pros and college -- have become nothing more than big business.

When one examines what big business is to the people who work for it, one cannot help but surmise that sports affects lives. No, games should not adversely affect fans in anything but perhaps our collective psyche. However, it is a fact that when the University of Oklahoma does really, really well in football, the state's economy -- at least at a cursory level, perhaps quantified in tourism dollars -- does really, really well, too.

However, jobs are tied to teams. Coaches. Trainers. Beat writers. Referees. Broadcasters. Ushers. For some people, the mistakes made in Saturday's Oklahoma-Oregon game do adversely affect their livelihood.

Most of all, replay official Gordon Riese received seven menacing calls this weekend before he wised up and shut off his phone. One of those calls, as reported by The Oregonian, was a death threat. Several news outlets, even some in Oklahoma and including ESPN.com (Pat Forde) have presumed that the death threat came from an OU fan.

However, The Oregonian article never even intimated that nor did Riese.

Riese was part of two other very controversial plays over the years -- the 1982 Stanford-Cal kickoff return, known as "The Play," and the 2002 Apple Cup (Washington vs. Washington State) overtime mess in which Cougars fans pelted their Pullman field with bottles after Riese made a controversial call resulting in a 29-26 Huskies win.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a Sooners fan made even a menacing call to the man. It reminds me of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing when pundits automatically presumed that the tragedy was the work of an Arab when sheer mathematical probability told us otherwise. Logic won out. It was the work of a dastardly Buffalo, New York, native by the name of Timothy McVeigh.

My point is simple relative to the situation Riese is in: It's a sad state of affairs in our society when people resort to harrassing a fellow who umpired a ball game. However, typically, what I'd classify as an act of insanity is usually perpetuated by somebody who is off-kilter, and there are plenty of folks who qualify across this country.

My hunch says the jerks who resorted to harrassing Riese were more than likely either gamblers, whose booty was lost as a result of the extra Oregon score (plausible depending on the over-under of the game), or assholes. For example, take a Texas fan who might think it cute to harrass Riese and claim to be an OU fan, knowing damned well that the press would make the entire Sooner Nation look bad.

Truth be told, if Oklahomans had wanted to threaten Riese directly by phone, I would estimate he would have already received hundreds of calls by the time he returned from church on Sunday.

When OU President David Boren decided to write a letter to the Big 12 conference seeking respite against the Pac 10, he was branded a baby, a grandstander by the national press, when all he was doing was taking a little heat off OU coach Bob Stoops, athletic director Joe Castiglione and appeasing the hundreds of thousands of hard-working Oklahoma fans across the country.

As Boren told one local reporter, "You'll never know unless you ask," in response to a question about his request that the game's result be vacated. Oklahoma stands to lose between $14-17 million if it doesn't make a BCS bowl game because of this loss.

How does that dollar figure equate to the real world?

Studies have shown time and time again that university academics do not sustain tangible benefit from big-time athletic programs. Sure, there is prestige; however, the success of a major football or basketball program doesn't buy a book, doesn't fund a salary, doesn't do squat except go back into the athletic program.

However, losing $14-17 million potentially would affect academics negatively because the anticipated monies would have to be recovered somehow, which would more than likely lead to a reallocation of resources that directly impacts the budgets of academic programs.

The pyramid of affectation with regard to an egregiously blown call, such as Saturday's, is actually rather large economically, and hence "really."

Now, if we're looking for a meaningful social commentary, this is it. When sports analysts, such as ESPN's Pat Forde writes on about what a shame it is that Boren spoke out about the officiating, how OU is emanating nothing but the sourest of grapes, methinks he should examine his own house.

ESPN is the very institution that has perpetuated the rise of athletics into our very social fiber to the point where its outcomes can affect lives. ESPN and its broadcasts were the very reason, it turns out, that Riese and his team were rushed into making a decision on the call in order to keep the network on time for its prime-time Nebraska-USC matchup.

In a roundabout way, ESPN is very much to blame for the sports-is-life mentality that Americans hold. However, for Forde or AP writer Richard Russo or for MSNBC's Michael Ventre to proselytize to Oklahomans about gaining some perspective is disingenuous at best.

Oklahomans have a very healthy perspective when it comes to sports and life. Note, I didn't say sports and academia because as even I would admit, we Okies value too much the athletic experience of university life over its scholastic benefits.

However, life?

Oklahoma suffered the first great domestic terrorist act (unless you count Pearl Harbor, which happened while Hawaii was a territory in 1941) in United States history, killing 168 and ruining the lives of thousands.

Just four years later, nearly 50 Oklahomans were killed in one night by the largest tornado this country has ever seen, and yet Oklahoma's National Guard was the very first military entity to deploy troops to the Gulf Coast when Hurricane Katrina invoked its wrath on New Orleans and Mississippi.

My professor friend certainly would love it if Okies would get a grip on the separation that truly needs to happen eventually between college athletics and post-secondary academics. However, to suggest Oklahomans don't have a proper life perspective relative to those things that are "truly important to the world," as penned by a bunch of sportswriters is not only disingenuous, it's insulting and damn near libelous.

In actuality, the tragedies Oklahomans have endured over the years have helped us to appreciate our teams more. Sure, we bitch and moan from time to time, but I would challenge anybody who suggests that an OU fan threatened that replay official's life to prove it and to prove that he or she is clinically sane, not some random wacko.

And, until you step into the shoes of the 3 million or so people who have chosen to call the Sooner State home, garnering not only some empathy for what this state has been through from time to time but also proving yourselves in the world of humanitarianism, like this state's people have, while examining the very role your institutions have played in the disproportionate rise of athletics in society (not to mention the very outcome of Saturday's game, Mr. Forde), you can frankly shut the hell up.

Our perspective, like our state, is OK.

There was a scene in the Academy Award-winning Crash in which Thandie Newton got felt up by an L.A. policeman while Newton's on-screen husband, played by Terrence Howard, looked on.

He did nothing, although he would later question what he was supposed to do in the face of an armed officer.

Newton's character was furious at her husband, not because of what happened to her but because Howard's character never even attempted to stand up for her. While I was always able to sympathize with Howard's character, given the stereotype we believe about L.A. cops, I was more able to empathize with Newton's.

Today, OU President David Boren won my undying loyalty for standing up to not only the Pac 10 conference but to his own Big 12 commissioner, Kevin Weiberg. Boren fired off a letter demanding an investigation into Saturday's debacle between the Sooners and Ducks at Autzen Stadium in Eugene, Ore., and told reporters that it was time for Weiberg to earn his keep.

I'm not aware of any bad blood between Boren and the conference office; however, it's not like Weiberg had as-of-yet even commented on the joke that was the officiating, which indisputably cost OU a win on Saturday. Among Boren's requests was an unlikely one -- that the result of Saturday's game be ruled a no contest.

Not that he got the idea from me, but that's exactly what I espoused on Sunday. To me, ruling that game a no contest would be a way for the officiating crew, the Pac 10 conference and the University of Oregon to save face while granting Oklahoma a tad bit of justice.

Why is justice important in a college football game?

It isn't 99 percent of the time because 99 percent of the time, a call on the field is one of judgment.

Even last year's Oklahoma loss to Texas Tech ended on a play and subsequently a call that was completely left to judgment. Did the Red Raider cross the goalline? Well, truth is, football rules relating to the goalline are more about plane geometry than they are about anything that is empirical.

However, that Oregon's Brian Paysinger touched Oregon's onside kick at the 39-yard-line is beyond dispute. Pac 10 officials suspended David Cutaia's crew for one game because they concluded the same thing.

This crew included replay official Gordon Riese who was a line judge in the greatest, most controversial play in college football history -- The Play -- when Cal managed to lateral a kickoff some 52 yards for a score in the midst of the Stanford band pouring onto the field. Stanford players and coaches pleaded their case that laterals were in fact illegal and knees actually touched the ground.

Nevertheless, what's interesting is that Saturday's OU-Oregon snafu isn't even the most controversial play with which Riese has been associated! But, I digress ...

That OU's Allen Patrick actually recovered the "live ball" is beyond dispute. However, in college football, possession is not reviewable. Therefore, that is beyond the scope of discussion. I know, we hate it as Sooners fans because we know No. 23 recovered the ball. Nevertheless, it's irrelevant.

Even the phantom pass-interference call a couple plays later, in which video evidence suggested that OU's C.J. Ah You tipped the ball, is beyond discussion because the video only suggests that the ball was tipped at the line because its trajectory changed.

Unfortunately for us, a trajectory change does not equate to indisputable evidence. Remember, indisputable means it's a fact. You can take it to the bank just as you can that 2+2=4, although leave it to a PhD mathematician to actually be able to prove that disputable.

I feel good tonight about what's happened in the past two days because I know those of us who bleed crimson and cream not only have the world's best university president in terms of building academic programs and luring global scholars to Norman, but we also have a guy who'll go to bat for us when our football team gets screwed.

Why did he do it?

Boren said he wrote the letter to Weiberg in order to bring attention to the issue, in hopes of improving instant replay, not just for the benefit of OU but for the benefit of all intercollegiate athletics. The rules of fair play in my opinion coincide with Boren's actions on Monday in that while games are just games, fair play really is a concept that stands taller than first downs and blocked kicks.

While OU's players got a lesson the hard way that not everything in life is going to go their way, Boren demonstrated the highest level of leadership as an example to every player, every coach and every football fan in the country. Those at the very top have an obligation to stand up not only for what's right but also for the people who serve them and their communities.

Hell, I'm not even talking about the players.

I'm talking about us, the OU fans, financial supporters and alumni.

It won't change the outcome of the game nor will it sooth the sting all that much. However, it should cause every one of us who carries a piece of the University of Oklahoma with them in our daily lives to count ourselves lucky to have David Boren as the school's leader.

I turned toward J and told her, "If the Ducks get this onside kick, they'll win."

See, I've seen this movie before.

In a game against Texas Tech last season, referees made one terrible call and another iffy call that led directly to a Red Raiders win, 23-21, in Lubbock. The zebras even utilized instant replay to double-check their wrongness and, somehow, still left the call uncorrected.

In Saturday's game against Oregon, OU actually recovered an onside kick with the game 33-27 and about a minute left. Furthermore, the ball was clearly touched at about the 39-yard-line, one yard shy of what would constitute a legal touch.

The latter call is iffy; however, the indisputable video evidence -- and believe me, it's indisputable -- is that Sooners running back Allen Patrick recovered the ball. He didn't wrestle it from a Duck. No, the ball was touched illegally by one Oregon player, muffed by OU's Lendy Holmes and then punched back behind the pile into the arms of Patrick.

He fell to the ground and handed the refs the ball. The whistle blew when he had the ball.

And, still, OU somehow came up on the wrong side of this call.

And, OU somehow lost the game despite actually playing very well for most of it. You may disagree given that our defense allowed 501 yards of total offense; however, fundamentally, I thought we stepped it up a notch this week.

I was over the loss five minutes after Garrett Hartley's kick was blocked. Seriously. T, J and I turned on Bill Maher, poured a couple beverages and kicked back for an evening of television, karaoke and general chit-chat. You know, solving the world's problems.

However, on Sunday, I began to think about something that I think will eventually happen in sports.

Could this possibly be taken to court?

I mean, has there not been a tort committed here? There is actual, tangible damage, as well as significant intangible damage. The evidence is indisputable, and the action of the so-called expert in charge of handling the task was indisputably negligent.

Think of it this way. If I were to take my sainted mother in for surgery and the doctor were to leave his scissors in her stomach, I would at least be legally afforded a free scissors removal, right? Depending on the laws in the state and/or the agreements signed, a court would at least insist that the surgeon remove the obstruction.

Truth is, the NCAA is an organization whose members participate voluntarily. Therefore, the courts would likely never interfere in its business so long as its rules are being enforced to the letter of the law. It's like the Casey Martin golf-cart issue, where the courts said that any PGA player is under the purview of its organization.

I'm not saying that the outcome of a college football game should be challenged in a court of law. I'm suggesting that I'm surprised it hasn't happened before, and I'm here to tell you that it will happen at some point.

First, people spend a ton of money to go to these games, particularly the people who travel. Usually $50-100 per ticket, not to mention airfare, shelter and food.

Second, there is an unwritten expectation that the outcome of a game -- any game, any sport -- would be legitimate. For example, if it turned out that both teams were in on some sort of point fix, well, the courts -- I think -- could at least refund ticket money.

To me, this is more akin to concertgoers who spend their hard-earned bread only to be greeted by a performer who is so drunk, he can't perform. I think this happened to Neil Young, and forgive me if it wasn't him. I'm a big fan of his, but I seem to recall an incident where he was so intoxicated at one of his concerts that he couldn't perform.

Seems to me that ticketholders might have gotten a refund, but I'm not sure. I would presume that college football tickets have an as-is, whatever-happens clause associated with their sale.

Eventually, some legal eagle is going to challenge a game like this, but not on the basis that ticketholders have been wronged. No, I think they'll challenge the NCAA on the grounds that they have a good faith obligation to right wrongs even after the fact.

It's one thing to question a foul. However, it's another to catch the ball in bounds without any question of dropping it and have the catch still be called incomplete. That happened to OU in 1984 when Keith Stansberry intercepted Texas in the Cotton Bowl, in what would have given the Sooners a 15-12 win.

This one, the debacle in Oregon, is quite worse because the NCAA instituted instant replay to take care of these very situations. In my opinion, the NCAA must give itself the authority to change the outcome of games after the fact to save itself from the possibility of lawsuit in the future.

In my opinion, the NCAA needs not to give OU the win or Oregon a loss.

Saturday's game between the Sooners and Ducks should be wiped off the books as a no-contest.

And, for every armchair Sooner fan -- my brothers and sisters of the crimson-and-cream church of gridiron heaven -- I have one piece of advice. Don't jump off that cliff just yet.

The beauty about a college football Saturday is hanging out with old friends, acting silly, getting worked up about a game and then wasting the evening away with conversation and fun. The outcome truly is secondary, although it's always better to win.

Believe me, I hate it (H-A-T-E) when we lose. However, it's totally unhealthy to dwell on it for more than about 10 minutes.

However, I think the days of saying, "Well, there's nothing we can do about it" are probably soon to be over. Because the NCAA has put in methods of ensuring that calls are correct, such as they have by instituting instant replay, I'd submit that they're liable for ensuring a correct outcome in cases where the evidence is indisputable, even after the fact.

There is legal precedent for this. In the Internet world, any private organization who chooses to monitor its message boards (on its Web site, for example) is legally obligated to monitor its content for things like libel. Because the institution makes an active step toward monitoring content, they are then responsible for it.

The analogy could hold for college football and the NCAA's attempt to make sure its games are managed fairly and its outcomes are righteous.

Eventually, somebody's going to get brave enough and have the substantial resources required to challenge them on it.

So many things I'd like to touch on and so little time. With a night of high-school football coverage behind me (and a Muskogee win I might add, 21-7, over hapless Union), I thought it appropriate to just get to the point and address several issues.

Issue 1. Al Gore needs to be the next Democratic nominee for president. I spent part of my Friday watching an episode of SNL from May, and Gore did the opening, joking about all the things he accomplished as our nation's chief executive.

The premise of the bit, of course, is that he had been elected.

Oh, wait. He was, wasn't he?

Gore's image across the country as a self-deprecating progressive politician, combined with his continued association with the Clinton era and Hillary's recent mumblings about foregoing a run at the White House, make the Tennessee native the perfect Dem nominee in 2008.

First, his public feels like he got jobbed in 2000. There's a high level of motivation to get a little political revenge for that nightmare.

Second, science has backed Gore up on all his rants regarding global warming. Even with Republicans throwing out gay marriage and flag burning as the topics of importance within the public discourse, the health of our environment still resonates with way more people than for which we'd give it credit.

Third, he has Howard Dean's populist fervor without the shouting. Unfortunately, he does have a lisp, but -- hey -- we can't all speak like Dubya, right?

Finally, who else do the Dems have? Nobody. John Kerry was talking about kicking the collective asses of those swift boat ad mongers all across the country should he run again in 2008, and I just want no part of it. First, I don't buy that John Kerry could kick anybody's ass, and -- second -- if the Massachusetts senator couldn't beat Bush in 2004, then he won't beat anybody this go-round.

Besides, the Republicans -- mark my words -- will be nominating Rudy Giuliani. Take that to the bank, and unless the Dems get it together or Jeb Bush decides to run, Rudy's our next president.

Issue 2. Don't look now, but the economy is about to get really freakin' good again. I'm talking 1997 levels.

Call me a conspiracy freak, but I'm not convinced that lower gas prices aren't the ploy of Republican oil producers hoping for a resounding midterm November victory. However, what I've read about oil production and the likely economic reaction to dropping prices suggests that recent trends do point to another run at the go-go 1990s here in the next couple of years, which underscores the need for a strong Democratic candidate in 2008.

Issue 3. Ann Richards. God bless that woman. However, I've got a beef with the American public on this one.

As much as I loved me some Ann Richards, I think there's a double standard with regard to public opinion and strong women leaders. On the one hand, folks love the gun-totin', whiskey-shootin' (formerly) grandma on her motorbike. On the other, people absolutely hate Hillary Clinton.

To me, Ann Richards espoused traditionally male strength traits in a female's body and with a Southerner's touch, whereas Hillary encompasses strength in general. Not female or male per se. To me, that's a double standard.

Doesn't mean I didn't love Ann Richards, but I just don't get why people are so turned off by a strong woman like Hillary.

Issue 4. Rosie O'Donnell is going to completely turn The View into must-watch-TV. A week ago, she made reference to taking a bath with her kid, noting that the kid asked about Rosie's pubic hair.

The kid asked Rosie, "When will I get my fur?"

Barbara Walters nearly had a stroke.

I can tell you from seeing viewer e-mails at the station that Ms. O'Donnell is very much hated in this state. However, having watched the first couple weeks of Rosie on the mid-morning ABC staple, I've gotta say: She's damned funny and a bit edgy.

Can't say I was a giant Rosie fan before this or during her syndicated talk show of a few years back or even her time doing Improv shows on A&E or VH1 or whatever the hell it was on. However, I've gotta give her some props.

Now, this doesn't mean I think she'll last more than a year or two on the show. The GOP is taking aim at her for claiming radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam.

Ideally, intellectually, I agree with Rosie. Practically, as in what it means to me physically over the next several years, I completely disagree. However, my interpretation of what she was saying was the former. Of course, the GOP turns any statement, any discussion into a snippet with the sole purpose of either provoking anger or fear.

In other words, we just can't discuss anything anymore.

Issue 5. I watched Spalding Gray's 1992 follow-up to 1987's "Swimming to Cambodia," which I have never seen, called "Monsters in a Box." Man, I didn't know much about this guy before seeing him as a character actor in "The Paper."

However, he was brilliant, odd, very tragic (he committed suicide, as some of you will know, by leaving his apartment and jumping into the East River), and I was mesmerized watching him talk. That's what he did. He made these movies, autobiographical pieces, where he just talked.

Brilliant. If you scan by it on the ol' DVR, record it. And, if you own "Swimming to Cambodia," lend it to me.

I'll be honest with you. I'm tired. My arms are sore. My brain is sore. My fingers are really sore.

It's been a long summer, a long week and I'm ready for bed. Heck, I was ready for some shut-eye at 6 p.m. Good thing I get to sleep in, sort of. I've got an interview with some landscapers -- no, not to do my lawn -- for a freelance article I'm writing on how to do inexpensive landscaping projects.

That's at 10, so I really need to hit the sack.

However, I missed a night of valuable blogging at the end of a long summer, one that saw Big Brother crown Boogie as its champ, one that saw DWTS' first contestant eliminated -- Tucker Carlson -- and one that saw the boys from Supernova (soon to be something else) pick Canadian Lukas Rossi as its lead singer.

I can't help but feel good for the 29-year-old Rossi, who came to this competition from Hooters, where he was a fry cook. I mean, good for him. He told the band that he was basically "broke as a joke," which I can absolutely empathize with a lot of the time.

As for Dilana Robichaux, the runner-up for 2006, she was offered a spot touring with Supernova in a support role. Gilby Clarke offered to help write some of her tunes, and all the guys offered to play on her record.

Actually, if I were her, I'd pass.

If that chick can turn my buddy, T, on to a reality music contestant (he still wouldn't watch the show), then she's got somethin' all on her own. The Bonnie Tyler growl. The angst. The devil-possessed movements. She really has something marketable to people who enjoy substance and something unique and stylish in their rock-n-roll.

She's like what happens if you mix David Bowie with Janis Joplin with a touch of Karrin Allyson and Satan. It's that good.

Well, she ain't nothin' but potential yet, but aren't we all?

Speaking of which, I'm in training, dudes. That's a big reason why I'm sore.

I worked out on Sunday, Monday and then Wednesday. The workout consists of about 30 minutes of fast walking on the treadmill to start. Really, my heart rate gets up just fine doing fast walking, just as much as when I run. The reason I refrain from the running is two-fold: my dry skin (lovely) can't really deal with two showers during the day (and I don't do morning workouts), and my knees and ankles don't take to running very well. Well, not at least three or four times per week.

A lot of that is because I'm carrying 210 pounds on a frame that really should only be 170-180.

That's why I'm in training.

But, damn if I can cut out the ice cream. I have no problem with anything else, but eliminating the occassional chocolate snack, such as a Hershey's kiss, and a general helping of ice cream every day is killing me.

I just have a sweet tooth that can't be satisfied with yogurt or fruit. I need the good shit. On the other hand, I do believe that's why I started drinking chocolate Silk soy milk, which tastes unbelievably good. I could get that fix and still get some valuable calories.

Perhaps you should stage an intervention.

That's what this blog has turned into. I'm rambling.

As for weekend plans, we've got the usual: football (I do like Oklahoma to beat Oregon, let's say 35-17 ... seriously, don't laugh), another workout on Friday and possibly an ice cream throw-out party.

Saturday is a huge day of college football with like seven games involving two teams in the Top 25. Unfortunately, OU won't be playing in HD, which is half the reason I watch these games.

Oh, I totally forgot to mention the sore fingers. Many of you don't know that I play the guitar. Not terribly well, but I did pick out the chords to Herman's Hermits' "There's A Kind Of Hush" the other night. Not on purpose. I don't particularly love the tune.

My guitar is a total cheapie, but it's been durable and it fits me just fine. The strings are cheapie, too, and they haven't broken in like three years. Seriously. Perhaps I need to change them on principle or something.

However, I find that I am more interested these days in getting better on the guitar, perhaps because I'm in that phase of learning where even minor accomplishments result in big sound differences. Besides, I'd really love to master a second instrument. I pretty much have the piano down pat at this point, anyway.

If I'm coherent tomorrow and up to it, perhaps I'll have something a bit more substantive to offer.

The reality-television gods conferred on Tuesday night to bring forth hours of TiVo time-suck.

First, my man Boogie (Mike Malin) won BB All-Stars in a vote that surprised a little. Sure, I noted late last week that I thought he'd win convincingly, but I never expected Howie to vote for the guy.

Everything I have read suggests that this finale sucked turds in terms of the two contestants. However, based on what I know about the game, I can't imagine that either Will Kerby or Mike Malin wouldn't win it again should another All-Stars come up.

Truth is, Will Kerby came out the winner even though he didn't snare a dime of cash because everybody acknowledged that he is the most bad-ass American Big Brother player of all time. And, he's a Clippers fan to boot.

CBS' Rock Star trotted its four finalists for one last rock show, as the kids call it, before Supernova (or whatever they will call themselves after a judge ruled today that they must stop using that name) picks its lead singer. Each of the four finalists played a cover and an original.

In my opinion, the best original of the bunch came from the eliminated contestant who was selected by viewers to return to the show for one encore, Ryan Star. His tune "Back Of My Car" compares quite favorably with any popular, current adult-alternative release.

Of the four finalists, Toby Rand's original, "Throwin' It All Away," is by far the strongest. Each of the others has a flaw, IMHO.

Lukas Rossi's "Head Spin" is terrific musically but, I think, overwrought and simple lyrically.

Dilana's "Super Soul" is self-indulgent and boring.

Magni's "When The Time Comes" isn't bad, even though Tommy Lee didn't care for it, although I'd say that the guitar hook is pretty excellent.

However, we had heard the originals. I don't think anybody improved on their original, except for perhaps Lukas, who did "Head Spin" accompanied only by acoustic guitar.

Besides, they all really pale in comparison to "Back Of My Car."

In terms of the covers, Dilana Robichaux -- from South Africa originally but from Houston for the purposes of the show -- turned The Police's "Roxanne" upside-down, and I mean that in a good way. Keeping the vibe a bit subdued with only acoustic guitars and choosing to have the other contestants sing back-up, which was hailed as a good move by the band members whose band now has no name, Dilana sang the hell out of that song. It was tres excelente.

Even Paula Abdul was there, and might I add that she looked lit out of her gourd? She did. I know, a shock.

Dave Navarro acknowledged her, as did a couple of the rockers. Navarro noted that Paula Abdul knows where to come to hear great singers and that what makes "Rock Star" so special is that these guys get the chance to do original material.

Now, Idol's a different puppy, but Dave's point is right on. I love singers, good ones that is and the really terrible; however, as a songwriter myself, I hold the utmost respect for fellow writers. I don't poo-poo non-writers like many of my fellow non-musical rock fans, but the appreciation still stands.

Anyway, Toby covered a dull Radiohead song that was not called "Creep," and Lukas did a Coldplay tune ("Fix You") that was only mildly more interesting.

Props to Magni though for doing Deep Purple's "Hush," which allowed the excellent Rock Star house band to break out the organ. Dude, nobody busted out some organ like Deep Purple. I still remember buying the cassette that had "Knockin' At Your Back Door" when I was 15 and crankin' it very, very loud.

That was back in my Circus magazine days, back before I realized Rob Halford was a total you-know-what.

Alas, Rock Star in the end comes down to the best fit for the band. I think there is no doubt that Dilana will surface in the band's final two. She's the most talented vocally. However, the best fit for this band in terms of style and energy and looks, not to mention p****-gettin' ability, is Toby Rand.

He'll be your winner Wednesday night.

Lastly -- and I ripped through my TiVo like Oprah does a bag of Cheetos -- I watched ABC's premeire of "Dancing With The Stars."

There's a long way to go in Season 3, but it doesn't appear that anybody comes close to Mario Lopez, and the oddsmakers agree.

While the women danced the ultra-boring foxtrot, the dudes danced the cha cha freakin' cha, which allowed for a bit of funkiness from Emmitt Smith and Joe Lawrence. I can't really peg the women in terms of ability or spark; however, I know I'll be rooting against Sara Evans after it was revealed that Tom DeLay supports her.

The article revealed that "he especially wants her to beat Jerry Springer 'to send a message to Hollywood and the media that smut has no place on television.'"

Dickhead.

However, honestly, Sara's probably the better dancer. On the other hand, she was as conservative and stiff as a Puritan Stepford wife. Jerry needs a little help with the steps, but I'm convinced that people like him. I do at least, and I'll freely admit to watching about 10-15 minutes of his show every couple of months until my white-trash sensors remind me that I don't like that stereotype.

Neither will win though.

I say this bugger comes down to Mario and Emmitt. Deuce-deuce is uber popular, and Mario has the most talent.

We shall see ...

I would love to live in New York, but only if I had the money. No need to be poor in New York; I can be poor in Norman.

Alas, I've discovered a Web site, a blog tabbed as one of the coolest by Time. It's called Overheard in New York, and it's basically the handiwork of six people in New York who document real conversations.

Believe me, while the capacity for fibbing is pretty high here -- anybody double-checking these conversations? -- it matters not. This site if freaking brilliant and a wonderful timewaste, and it's legitimate Web Americana.

If you don't laugh out LOUD because of one of these conversations ... Let's just say you'll either thank me or curse me for introducing you to this site.

As we approach the five-year commemoration of the Sept. 11 tragedy, most folks will ask, "Are we safer today than we were in 2001?"

The answer, in my estimation, is clearly no.

However, I also believe that's the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking, "Are we freer today than we were in 2001?"

If one looks at the motive of terrorists -- then, today, whenever -- as they work relative to their position against the United States, their goal is simple. They want to terrorize Americans.

They don't hate us for our freedom. To say that is to not understand the stone age, backward culture from which they come. And, anybody who wants to tell me that espousing that the Arab cultures of Iraq, Iran, Syria and the like are anything more advanced than about 1875 is living in a fantasy land.

Nevertheless, I do believe terrorists want to terrorize us in part by helping to turn this country into a police state.

And, guess what? After five years, how can we conclude anything else except that they've won?

Wiretapping. Unchecked presidential powers. We can't take nail polish onto planes. I don't feel freer than I did five years ago, nor do I feel safer. On the other hand, I lived in Dallas for 10 years and never felt totally safe. That feeling of complete safety is way overrated though.

You call it safety. I call it an adventure.

Football --- OK, two points on a weekend chock-full of football, both at the college and pro level. First, considering how bad OU's supposed great defense has played in the first two weeks, I really think I can conclude that Brent Venables needs to show us something or say goodbye to Norman.

That's right. I'm thiiiiis close to starting my Fire Brent Venables campaign.

What has the guy ever done on his own without Mike Stoops?

The ass-kicking against K-State in the Big XII title game two years ago? The loss to LSU? The loss to USC, 55-19? All Brent. The fire, the playmaking ability, the intensity of this defense all left when Mike Stoops went to Arizona.

As beloved as Venables is in Sooner Nation, I think he needs to show us something soon (at least teach our boys how to tackle) or prepare to look for other work.

Now, as for the Dallas Cowboys, I could have told you what's wrong with them weeks ago. Years ago, actually.

Drew Bledsoe.

He was a stiff in New England, a stiff in Buffalo and a stiff for the Cowboys. He sucks so royally bad that I practically hope for a knee injury so the magnificent Tuna can have no other choice but to put Tony Romo in. Not that I think Romo will lead Dallas to a Super Bowl, but I promise you they won't win one with Bledslow. God, he sucks.

Remember, I'm the guy who told you former OU coach Kelvin Sampson was not only a bad coach, he was a cheat. Guess who turned out right, there, on at least the second half of the charge? Trust me, if you love the 'Boys, you gotta hope for something better than Drew.

DWTS --- I tease with J that she really needs to make a television appointment with ABC's "Dancing With The Stars," which kicks off its third season this Tuesday.

I think everybody should watch it because if it consumes my disposable time, it should consume everyone's. Besides, it's damned fun.

If I had to pick a Final 3 without ever seeing them dance, let's just say I think Emmitt Smith will fare well with Cheryl Burke. She is so freakin' gorgeous, although my loyalty lies with Ashley DelGrosso. She's a sweet, clean Mormon girl.

I think Joe Lawrence will likely do well in this competition, and I suspect Mario Lopez is pretty good. Vivica A. Fox will probably do quite well, and I figure Jerry Springer and Harry Hamlin will be fan favorites.

If I had to guess who will get eliminated first, I would say Tucker Carlson. Everything I've heard about his dreading the dance floor indicates he could be the Kenny Mayne of DWTS Season 3.

However, to those of you who say that appearing on this show diminishes Carlson's journalistic credibility, I say phooey. To me, appearing on a show like this, which is completely done in a self-deprecating manner, not only benefits the contestant in terms of pop-culture recognition, it makes the contestant way more human because we're all self conscious when we dance.

I think Bill Clinton would be a GREAT contestant on the show; however, I'd also like to see Congress repeal the 22nd Amendment so we can have 8-12 more great years with him at the helm of this nation.

It's safe to say in either case that it ain't gonna happen.

Never thought I'd become addicted to CBS' Big Brother again after a Season 1 rendezvous that saw a local boy (local to Dallas) with one leg win.

But, damn if I didn't get addicted again. Like heroin. It's a stronger addiction this time. The drug is thicker. Its buzz lasts longer, and don't you know the hangover might be a bitch. This All-Stars edition has had a little of everything -- either that -- or I am easily entertained.

The drama was such between ChillTown and the two chicks left in the house that I discussed with a colleague why Erika should win. The colleague agreed on the principle that Boogie (Mike) was just playin' her in their "showmance," which resulted in the affair seeming more like a "homance."

Really, considering the deceit in this game, surely it was but a "fauxmance."

Who's the most annoying guy in the room right now? Me. Yep. Me.

That's a reference to Will's tease of Janelle, when he says, "Who's the prettiest girl in Big Brother history?"

And, she is. Holy Minnesota, is that northern girl H-O-T.

However, because of Thursday night's episode, which I only got to watch late Friday (early Saturday, really), I've changed my mind. I'm pulling for Boogie on Tuesday night all the way.

Probably my greatest flaw in life is my loyalty. Not to employers. Hell, I've had, what, 10 so far in my career? I get bored easily. Way too easily. Not to women. Geez, I've had what, 22 girlfriends in the past six years? That's really a joke, although I did completely alienate one women I was "showmancing" by saying that I'd rather watch a Jets-Broncos game than go to the mall with her. I literally never saw her again.

No, I'm loyal to friends. I literally am that guy who would help you bury the body if you needed it done, although that's not totally true considering I'm more of the fourth level on Maslow's hierarchy. I'm the guy who must follow rules and laws. I'm freaking Les Nessman. But, I'd totally help you get a good attorney.

I actually felt sorry for Boogie because he didn't have his buddy Will there with him. And, I loved the resolve Mike had to get out there and kick ass in the final two HoH competitions given that he purposefully tanked the first one. Finally, I thought it was a no-brainer that he evicted Janelle given that she would have had votes sowed up from Season 6.

What I appreciated was the bond Boogie and Will have on the show. Loyalty, to me, is an extremely positive trait, even if blind loyalty is kind of a sucker's game. So, my rooting interest goes with Boogie, and I suspect he'll get the votes to win BB All-Stars.

I think he'll get Will for sure. Duh. But, I think he'll also get Janelle because she loves her some Will Kerby. That's 2.

Danielle said she would vote for the best player, and that's been Mike. Plus, Erica completely alienated her. That's 3.

Marcellas and Howie will be voting for Erika given their hatred of ChillTown. That's 3-2, Mike.

George has what I'd call a mancrush on the good Dr., as he called Will, so I'm guessing the chicken man will vote for Boogie, too, upping the count to 4-2.

That leaves James as a wildcard, and I honestly think HIS vote will go to Boogie also, given their at least loose Legion of Doom ties. So, my prediction is Mike wins Big Brother 7 by a 5-2 count.

Speaking of predictions, we have a weekend of football. Here are my predictions for the big games:

OU 27, Washington 10

OSU 23, Arkansas State 20

Tulsa 34, BYU 31

Ohio State 31, Texas 21

Dallas 19, Jacksonville 17

Finally, I want to leave you with, literally, what I recall from the last part of my dream this morning, before waking up. It was a dream about my D.C. buddy, JN, but not one of those dreams. I have those about you.

In the dream, I had received a phone call. It was from the U.S. government, and the recorded voice on the other end said, "Nobody likes to hear their friends are terrorists. Please give us a call to discuss ___________ _______________. We have reason to believe he is a Darwinist."

That's right, a Darwinist.

Why do I think that's probably where we're eventually headed? What an odd little dream.

Go Sooners. Go Buckeyes.

Democrats are having a fit. The Drudge Report's primary headline says it all: "Will Iger Fold? Democrats Urge ABC To Withdraw 9/11 Movie."

The movie, labeled a dramatization by the network, apparently makes a connection between the Clinton administration's inability to get Bin Laden after the '93 attack on the WTC and the Sept. 11 tragedy.

Clinton's peeps call it defamatory. The Republicans say this is fair game considering those damned liberals (what they'd REALLY like to say is damned Jews, but they're too chicken to show their true stripes) run newsrooms and television stations across the country.

Simmer down. Simmer down.

I mean, it's not like ABC is selling this as the truth, right?

Right. They say it's a dramatization. They're clear about it; however, that matters not to me in the least. The events of Sept. 11 are so etched in the brains of Americans that anything you display about it pretty much has to be factually based for now, at least to the extent that blame should be divided.

To acknowledge that this movie is a dramatization, in my opinion, is to render it devoid of value, regardless of the position taken. Truth is, Clinton let Bin Laden get away before he was the world's greatest terrorist, and Bush let him get away after he killed 3,000 Americans five years ago.

Which is the greater offense? C'mon, that's easy. The latter.

Really, and I'll keep this one short and sweet, the best film one could create, in my opinion, would be one that lasts for seven minutes. It would be called "My Pet Goat," and it would metaphorically tell you all you'd ever, ever need to know about any contrasts this movie might make between Presidents Clinton and Bush relative to 9/11.

The movie would be split screen. On the left would be members of a Republican Congress bitching about a middle-aged white man getting his cock sucked, and on the right would be a middle-aged white man sitting alone with his thoughts, staring at a schoolkids' book, staring at schoolkids while the United States was under attack for the first time in 60 years.

Now, that would be a movie worth watching, a message that might help our fellow Americans make what I think is the appropriate connections and contrasts.

As many of you know, I work surrounded by professional television producers. They're people who know what makes a great newscast. Heck, the guy who sits next to me each day won a regional Murrow this year for his 10 p.m. newscast, meaning that it's the best newscast in Okla., Texas, La., or N.M.

Anyway, we talk. Today, we discussed Katie Couric. Yesterday, we discussed the new CBS anchor, too.

I've been a bit kinder to her debut than he has; however, we both agree that the structure and content of her first two shows is just a cacophony of non sequiturs.

In one segment, we saw war footage followed by Oscar the Grouch and then C3PO. If you happened to have dropped acid at about 4:30 p.m. CDT this afternoon, by 5:45 p.m., your trip got clean the f*** whacked into Neverland with the random imagery the CBS News peeps were throwin' on screens nationwide.

However, I think Katie has a TON of potential. I love their free-speech segment, which features a different ideologue or personality discussing the issues of the day in very much an NPR radio-essay type of format, except with pictures. It reminds me very much of something Charles Kuralt or Osgood would have done with the CBS Sunday Morning programs of the past couple of decades.

I do think she has a vibe about the news, bringing to it nearly the same level of class a Diane Sawyer brings. Nearly. Right now, it's way too forced. Right now, I'm still not buying it.

Sure, she was part of NBC's entertainment division for years, but I watched "Today" every day for like eight years, in Dallas, and I absolutely trust her news chops, inasmuch as I would trust somebody who is as much a personality as she is a journalist.

One of the biggest knocks on Katie's debut is that there isn't nearly enough NEWS. That would be NEWS with a capital 'N.' Tom Shales said something to the effect that no news wasn't the best news for Katie's debut.

However, I think CBS News is moving in the right direction, by marrying some parts pop culture with other parts news. Truth is, putting together a news show is about knowing your audience and delivering the information they're interested in. It's not about what our opinions are relative to the issues of the day, what we consider to be most important.

Producers essentially guesstimate, based on research and focus groups, what you think is important as viewers. Overwhelmingly, viewers don't want hard news, done NPR or BBC style, thrown at them for 30 minutes. Stories from countries they can't spell not only aren't interesting to those folks, they're not interesting to me -- and I can spell every country correctly.

Even Uzbhekistan. Is that right, btw? Oops, no, it's Uzbekistan.

People want to hear news that has either a direct effect on their lives or a direct effect on the things or people they love in their lives, and that's where the marriage between news and pop culture becomes most relevant.

The trick for CBS' producers is to piece together a 30-minute show that's a little more cogent and cohesive.

As for Katie's look, and I'm no fashion model, but it's clear she got pumped full of Botox this weekend. She looked like an alien on night No. 1 and just a bit less than an alien tonight. Truth is, I think any wrinkles she might have would serve her well with the audience that watches the 5:30 p.m. news.

Second, one of the biggest mistakes Elizabeth Vargas made, in my estimation, on ABC was in dressing like a housewife. No offense to housewives anywhere, but she often dressed for the 5:30 p.m. like my Mom dresses to go to church.

No offense, mum, but it just doesn't fly with delivering the evening news.

So, Katie, if you're reading, stick to blacks and grays. Minimize the jewelry. More suits, fewer dresses. Think Murrow and not Walters or Vargas.

My honest guess is that the buzz she's gotten her first couple of nights will subside considerably over the next couple of weeks. However, anybody who thinks Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams aren't up against a challenge is completely fooling themselves.

Dude, maybe I'm just a bit bummed out by the death of the guy who says "Crikey!" but I really think fellow Aussie Toby Rand is about to win the spot alongside Tommy Lee, Gilby Clarke and the bitter-beer face that is Jason Newsted in season No. 2 of Rock Star.

Toby doesn't have the vocal ability of a Dilana or the stage presence of Lukas Rossi and Storm Large (what are these, porn names?), but he's got two intangibles.

First, Toby can write a competent song, which he showcased tonight. I think it was called "Chemical Dreamin," and it featured whoa-ohs and a damn catchy chorus. Truth is, I think I liked Lukas' song, "Head Spinning," better than the others, but I know quite well that Toby's was by far the most commercial.

Second, he literally is the guy girls want and guys want to be. Lukas is the short guy at school who cuts himself and writes dark poetry. Dilana is the really smart, talented girl at school who smokes and drinks to make the intellectual playing field even amongst her lesser peers. Storm is the chick who's got talent but sleeps around for attention. Magni, in my opinion, is kind of the poseur.

From a business perspective, Supernova would almost be silly to hire anybody else. They'll sell a ton of tix from women, and we know how much Tommy Lee likes women. Honestly, I don't see Supernova as being as "serious" a band as Lukas would like, and besides, they just don't "look" like a match.

Dilana has proven herself to be a pain in the butt the past few weeks, and those guys don't need that. Besides, tonight's songwriting showcase proved her to be a mediocre songwriter compared to the others (although I completely disagree with Gilby relative to lyric writing).

Magni clearly longs for his wife and kids back in Iceland, and what sort of rock-n-roll vibe does that put on when Tommy Lee needs some lovin'?

Lastly, the band couldn't pick Storm. While tonight was probably her best night of the competition, and her original song was excellent, particularly lyrically, it's just not a visual match. Not close.

Supernova is comprised of three mid-30s to 40-something dudes looking to regain a little youthful glory. Mate, there's only one guy to take with you on that journey.

The one with whom you'll have the most fun.

If my hunch is the case relative to how the band is approaching the last two weeks of the competition, this thing is all but a done deal.

On the point about songwriting, Gilby chastised Dilana for being too literal. He wanted something more conceptual and imaginative. To me, that leads to sappy, mean-nothing love songs.

I wanna touch your heart like an angel

That's what that leads to.

Now, you don't want to pen something like I wanna touch your heart like Kobe touched that girl, although that's really pretty funny ... uh, if you think rape is funny. I don't. Seriously.

I guess my point is simply that too many lyrics are generic. The band Clutch has featured original songs about elephant riders, the Civil War and snowmen. Lyrically, does it really get any better than Just outside of Antietam, where once there was a mighty battle, I heard the rhythm of the hammers beating the rail lines together???

So, while he's right to encourage Dilana to write imaginatively, the descriptive literal -- I think -- is often poetic at times, and that's why country has been so damned popular in America all these many years. It's an art form built on the descriptive literal.

Quick hits on a day full of errands and preparations for a busy, busy week ahead.

Quick Hit No. 1: The friends and I have been watching The Chelsea Handler Show for four weeks now. She is the funniest bitch in the history of funny, and I only say it that way because that's how SHE might say it.

She's blue. Wrong. Vile. Beautiful.

Get in on the bandwagon while you can because she's headed down the same path Dave Chappelle was three or four years ago, but hopefully without the mental breakdown.

Plus, dare I say ... she's damned good looking, too.

Quick Hit No. 2: By now, most of you have probably seen pics of John Travolta kissing another man. Hell, I think I was the only one who didn't know there had been whispers about the dude's sexuality for years.

Alas, I also know the power of Photoshop, and with the controversies at Reuters and the NY Times relative to picture-fixing, I don't believe anything for sure without fact or seeing it myself. Trust me, that pic could be totally doctored. Not that I care if Travolta likes boys. Go for it, Vinny B.

Quick Hit No. 3: Best governor in America? Dare I offer up California's Arnold Schwarzenegger. His popularity rating has gone up to almost 50 percent from an awful 36 percent after he changed his tune relative to how he works with California legislators.

ABCNews.com explains that "after taking a beating for governing as an anti-union, right-leaning Republican, he's gained approval by cutting deals with the Democratic legislature on the minimum wage, prescription drugs and now global warming."

My take: Arnold really is about as independent as it gets in American politics. Unfortunately for California, he was learning on the job the first couple of years. However, their patience is about to get rewarded because I think he's governing way more effectively right now than anybody ever expected.

Does that mean I want the guy to be president? Not really. However, I am a big fan of the progressive (and I don't mean liberal, necessarily) politician. Right this second, it's not getting any more progressive than The Terminator.

Many things to touch on from the weekend. So, let's get right to it.

First, the Sooners squeaked by UAB. As I noted earlier in the week, I wasn't surprised that the Blazers played OU tough. They have that reputation.

On the other hand, my concern for Oklahoma has just skyrocketed. While quarterback Paul Thompson played pretty well early before going really inconsistent by the start of the third quarter, the entire offense was too vanilla for me to have expectations beyond 8-4.

My first complaint is that it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that running Adrian Peterson up the middle wasn't working. Everytime we'd pitch the ball out to the guy, he'd blaze. Up the middle just didn't get the job done. The coaches did a terrible job of reacting to trends, IMHO.

My second complaint is that the defense just simply forgot how to tackle white boys. Good God was that Sam Hunt elusive. Mega props to that kid. He's the best white option quarterback I've seen in a long time.

However, OU won, and that's all I care about. There is no guarantee we'll beat Washington, and it's looking less and less that we can avoid a butt kicking in Oregon come Sept. 16.

Here's my gradebook for Game 1:

Paul Thompson: B He managed the offense well enough. He'll get better, I'd suspect. My concern is that he just doesn't seem to be very fast.

Adrian Peterson: A+ We lose without this guy.

Jermaine Gresham: F The freshman TE was a complete non-factor and fumbled what I believe was his only reception. Not sure what all the fuss is about.

Wide Receivers: C They dropped too many balls for my taste. However, I think I'm being a bit harsh with this grade. Perhaps a B-.

Joe Jon Finley: A This guy reminds me of Ed McAffery. He was terrific.

Offensive Line: C- Blocked great on the outside but were just awful at developing holes for Adrian on the inside. We're desperately bad at the center and guard positions if Saturday's running attack up the middle was any indication.

Kicking: A Can't complain. No shanks. All the FGs were good. Life is dandy for the kickers of the world.

Kevin Wilson: D If this is what we get from a Chuck Long replacement, then I just think it's a shame. His offense had the variety of oatmeal, and his plan of attack was to play NOT to lose. I'll say it again: The only great offensive coordinator Stoops has ever hired was Mike Leach. The other guys were mere caretakers of better teams.

Rufus Alexander: A Without this guy, our defense would still be looking for Hunt.

Rest of the OU defense: F- They allowed UAB to dink and dunk and run and -- OU just got their tails whipped on defense by a team that went 5-6 last year. The problem for me isn't that we gave up points. It's that we sucked at defending the run and the pass. We have to do at least one well if we intend on achieving BCS status.

Moving onward ... the friends and I had a bit of a disagreement on the new rules for tipping at restaurants, or in this case a local pub in Norman. They say the standard is now 20 percent.

I said that I never got the memo, maintaining that 15 percent is the standard unless the service was excellent or you're part of a large party. Restaurants typically classify large parties as more than 6 or 7 people.

Anyway, just to make sure, I did a little research online, trying to make sure that my sources were as recent as possible. I utilized things like Zagat's and a site called the online tipping guide, tipping.org.

Most of the sites said 15 percent is the standard unless you're at a posh place in New York or Los Angeles. Posh = 4-star restaurant.

The Zagat's Guide for 2006 said the rule of thumb is more like 18 percent IF the service was good and 15 percent if it was average or below. Anything more was appreciated.

What's interesting is that according to Zagat's, the best-tipping city in America is Philadelphia. They average about 19.2 percent.

However, the majority of credible, current sites still say 15 percent is the standard. They were all clear that tipping is not an obligation by any means. Personally, and I'm the only one among the lot of us yesterday who has worked in food/bar service, I think restaurant owners should just pay their people more.

$2.13 per hour or whatever it is now is criminal in my estimation.

It might seem trivial, and it's not exactly the most important information in the world, but nobody wants to be that guy who's just a cheap bastard. Plus, the rules for tipping are not nearly the same for restaurants as they are for bars and pubs or deliveries or hairdressers, and this list could continue for some time.

Here are the links I used to look this crap up:

Link 1


Handy Tip-Chart Included


20% is standard in NY or LA. Chicago (meaning, the rest of us) is 15 percent


18% is minimum but they're talking about NY



Philadelphia ranked as best tippers at 19.2 percent


18 to 18.7% is the standard, but they're saying that this is what people do tip, not what they should tip

The best consensus I can derive from everything I found online is that 15 percent is still OK but the cool kids are tipping more, somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 percent. As for there being a social obligation to tip 20, I'm not sure where they got that, but I do want to be one of the cool kids.

Don't we all?