People always say, "[Fill in the Blank] is the most important day of your life." I usually hear that with marketing, but people use this phrase casually all the time.

So, let's clarify something. The most important day of your life is the day you are born. You've only gone one shot at it. Screw that one up and you're pretty much done.

The second most important day of your life is the day you die. It's the day that everything on your bucket list that you haven't accomplished gets carved in stone.

Everything else is just marketing bullshit.

I'm in Erie, Pennsylvania. I presented a web project this morning. It was a good presentation (not great), and was well received.

I flew in yesterday and set to work to finish the presentation. I had also hoped to improve the site in the intervening time, but it didn't take long to realize that the presentation demanded my full attention. Even so, I didn't finish the presentation until after midnight, and I woke up at 4 am and worked for the next two hours on improvements.

I'm waiting for my flight out, just four hours after the presentation. In the intervening time, I went to Presque Isle State Park on Lake Erie. It was really nice, especially when I first arrived. I sat on a park bench and read, until my toes got so hot that I was sure they were already sunburned. I retired to the car and read with the windows down for about an hour. At one point I heard a strong rustling sound and realized that a front was moving over the island. The temperature dropped ten degrees in just a few minutes, prompting me to roll up two of the four windows. It was fantastic to read on the bay, even if it was in the car!

One of the mysteries of this place is it's devotion to Tom Ridge. What, exactly, makes him so popular? The airport has been named after him, as well as an environmental center (I can only hope that the irony isn't lost on the locals). I saw several other buildings and at least one street named after the first Director of Homeland Security, the same person that used terrorist threats whenever popular opinion seemed to be turning against the Bush Administration. I just don't get it, but it makes me wonder if "the matter" isn't just with Kansas.

The other thing that jumped out at me is number of all wheel drive vehicles. Of course, it makes sense, with an average snowfall of 88 inches. But it is the only place where I've ever seen Subaru Outbacks as rental cars.

Okay, I'm tired and I think it's time to tune out for my flight.

Paul Krugman is not dead. Well, not really. But I'm not sure what else to call his stellar intellect after today's column, Clinging to a Stereotype. Krugman writes: "Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong." Let's look at the arguments.

On economics, Senator Obama has asserted that neither the Bush nor the Clinton administrations did much to help lower-middle and lower income people. Krugman writes, "But the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading." No serious individual denies that the strong economy during the Clinton administration raised most boats, but that doesn't mean that certain groups didn't continue to lose out. Remember that NAFTA, welfare reform (better understood as decimation), and other "pro-business" initiatives were hallmarks of the Clinton administration, measures that widened the gap between haves and have-nots. Most importantly, Obama isn't claiming that they were equally bad. He's acknowledging that some people were left behind.

About sociology, Krugman argues that there is no evidence that people turn to faith in times of economic crisis. He argues that using the word "cling" to describe that turn to faith is problematic. Senator Obama has agreed that his choice of words was unfortunate. I'm not a sociologist, but I remember from my historical studies that the trend toward faith during economic crisis is a common theme in many cultures, including our own. But perhaps Mr. Krugman has conveniently forgotten William Jennings Bryan.

Finally, Krugman takes issue with Obama on the voting patterns of Midwestern have-nots. He correctly notes that Obama's remarks resonate with the political observations of Thomas Frank, the author of What's the Matter with Kansas. He dismisses Frank's observations as populist and unscientific, choosing to advance the argument made by Krugman's Princeton colleague, Larry M. Bartels, in Thursday's New York Times. Bartels cites the 2004 National Election Study conducted at the University of Michigan. The study found that, as Krugman describes it, "that small-town, working-class Americans are actually less likely than affluent metropolitan residents to vote on the basis of religion and social values. Nor have working-class voters trended Republican over time; on the contrary, Democrats do better with these voters now than they did in the 1960s."

One of the things that I love about Krugman's columns is that he almost always is transparent with the studies he cites and he provides links directly to those studies. In this case, I was surprised that he didn't link to the study. After finding the study (link above), I understand why. I'm not a statistics guru, but I'm not an idiot either. The study interviewed a total of 1,212 respondents pre-election and 1,066 post-election. To put it another way, out of an American population of 300 million, this statement is based on 0.000355 percent of the American population. Are you freakin' kidding me?!?

I've got a challenge for Professors Krugman and Bartels. Spend a week in Hutchinson, Kansas, where I grew up, and see if you think that this study of 0.000355% of the American people holds true. Or if they don't have a week, just spend 24 hours in one of the following Kansas towns: Colby, Oakley, Dodge City, Abilene, or Garden City, Kansas. Anyone who gives this a try will see exactly why Thomas Frank's observations are so compelling: because in Kansas and many other states in America, it's not just populist political theory; it's lived reality.

Krugman has been unwavering in his support of Hilary Clinton. I have no qualms with that. He's a columnist and he gets paid for his opinions. Until now, I have appreciated his writings and his insights. Even his attacks on Barack Obama's health care plan have not fallen on deaf ears. For such a brilliant economist and public intellectual, this column is far too similar to the rhetorical devices of Bill Kristol and Maureen Dowd.

Please, Professor, return to the practices that have earned you the respect of so many intelligent people! The Times have recently become too passive about exchanging intellectual integrity for political sophistry. We rely on you to be a voice of intellect and reason in an industry whose standards have been eroded by News Corp and shock radio.

Today I should be a happy man. When Mario Chalmers hit the game tying bucket with 2 seconds left, I rejoiced. As overtime unfolded and Kansas' momentum lead to a six point lead, I was titillated. But today, I'm pretty sullen.

I'm sure that there are multiple factors playing into my mood. For one, all that the media seems to talk about is how John Calipari blew it. No question he did. No question that he should have called the timeout. He didn't. And instead of talking about how Kansas capitalized on all Memphis' mistakes in the final 2:12 of regular time, all they can talk about is Calipari's mistake. And maybe part of my blasse is a nagging suspicion that Memphis should have won that game.

Perhaps there is also just a measure of growing up involved. I remember 1988, Danny and the Miracles, etc. I remember the euphoria in the most nostalgic of ways. I'm no longer twelve. My biggest concern is no longer how long can I play basketball at the local grade school before my mother's decision that it was too dark to play.

As I write, I am struck by the reality that the Jayhawk victory is the end of the second best tournament on earth (the World Cup is still slightly better in my view) for me. My imminent move to South Africa means that watching college basketball will be more difficult than ever. But more immediately, it means that the stress of moving is once again front and center. The tournament, in all it's topsy-turvy glory, created a space in which I could be free of the tension of moving for a month. That space is now closed. It is no longer available.

Of course, there is always the possibility that what's really eating me is that Bill Self may move to Oklahoma State, just a day after I purged my hatred of Roy Williams from my system. If he leaves, I will be faced with a harsh reality: in this life, perhaps money really is the only thing that matters. If that's true, life is more Hobbes than Locke or Rousseau, and that is a reality that is, in and of itself, reason for severe angst.

I'm letting go of one of my demons. After the thrashing that Kansas gave UNC on Saturday, it is time to stop hating Roy Williams.

I am not someone who finds hate an easy thing to do. My natural disposition is to try to find a way to like people, but sometimes righteous indignation overrides my predisposition and I fail to reconstruct community. Usually, this situation occurs with people with whom I have a direct relationship. For example, my hatred of Sascha Meinrath is the direct result of my relationship with him and the underhanded things he has done to me and others I know.

I don't know Roy, and my hatred for him has been new territory for me. Unlike the President Bush, Sith Lord Chaney, and other politicians of the same ilk, I loved Roy. And it is that love which differentiates my feelings for Roy from the dislike that I feel for right-wing politicians. Even when Roy lost games that he shouldn't (e.g. Round 2 of the 1997 NCAA Tournament), I loved Roy. He was everything I respect and admire in coaches.

When he left for North Carolina after promising that he wasn't going to leave Kansas, I was devastated. It felt like walking into my home to find my lover in another man's arms (not that I've experienced this, btw). It was a betrayal so deep that others like Dean Smith, who I had previously respected, were equally reviled. On that day, the University of North Carolina replaced Duke as my favorite school to rout against.

That's over now. I'm done hating Roy. It takes too much energy and I need to reconcile the good things he does with an act that I'm sure was difficult for him. I still think Dean Smith is a rat bastard for using the "alma mater" plan of attack in order to screw his own alma mater (KU class of '53, and won a national championship with KU in 1952), but I've decided not to hate Smith, too. UNC doesn't get off that easily. The smugness of their program makes me ill, which is exactly what I can't stand about Duke.

One more thing, no matter what happens tonight, I'm changing my position on Bill Self. I've always admired his recruiting, but not his coaching ability. After Saturday's performance, it's time I recognize that he is better on the side line than I have ever given him credit for being. Hopefully, tonight he will give me one more reason to believe.

Since late January, Team Clinton has been screaming about the Obama Love Fest, claiming that the media has given Obama a free ride. When it began, I can't say they were wrong. In my view, the main stream media has responded, at least somewhat, and the coverage has become more balanced. Unfortunately, the Love Fest between the MSM and Senator McCain isn't being addressed. How else can you explain his continued "misstatements" about Iran supporting Al Qaida and the lack of MSM scrutiny?

I hate Love Fests. They are a pox upon society, obfuscating real issues and the truth. I also understand them. Love Fests are all about emotion. They are, as their name suggests, like the swooning first days of a love affair. The head has checked out. And there is nothing wrong with that in my book. Falling in love is, after all, a great experience. My objection to Love Fests is that the head never checks back in, reason never reappears in the relationship. It's like that person who can't stop talking about their cat, even though they have had the cat for a couple of years and one would have expected them to have "moved on".

This is why I cringed at the announcers, Jay Bilas and Dick Enberg, during last night's UNC-Louisville match-up. For at least a month (and really more like a year), basketball announcers have almost unanimously fawned over the talents of Tyler Hansbrough. He is a very talented player, but Bilas makes him sound like the second coming of French Lick and Jesus Christ combined. Bilas even said last night that Hansbrough was unquestionably the most valuable player in the country. Personally, he reminds me more of upgraded Kurt Rambis.

A couple of weeks ago, Mike Freeman of CBSSports called the Hansbrough Love Fest what it actually is: racism. (column here) Freeman makes the case that Hansbrough isn't any tougher or harder working than any number of players, black or white. ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski countered that Hansbrough's popularity is simply a matter of talent and desire, a combination that causes sports writers to gush regardless of race. He even goes so far as to write, "Is Hansbrough praised unnecessarily because he is a white basketball player? And the answer is no, just as it would be if we asked if Kansas State star Michael Beasley, the other POY candidate, is praised unnecessarily because he's black."

Wake up, Gene! Before you make that comparison, let me ask you who is gushing? Do you see any black sports writers gushing about Hansbrough? Nope. Who's gushing about Beasley? Or maybe the question is: who isn't? The Hansbrough groupies are lily white, while the Beasley crowd is ebony and ivory. So, Gene, I ask you, do you still want to make the claim that race is not involved? When was the last time that a black player of national prominence was praised for being a tough guy? That's Freeman's initial challenge to the Hansbrough Love Fest. Is it possible that Wojciechowski's refusal to address that question is as critical to understanding sports coverage in America as Senator Clinton's three-month refusal to acknowledge that she did not land under sniper fire in Tuzla?

To fully disclose, I hate UNC's athletic department. I am still bitter about Roy Williams' departure from Kansas. But I willingly acknowledge that Hansbrough is a very talented player and that he carried his team against Louisville. Is he the most talented player in college basketball? I believe that most analysts concede that honor to Michael Beasley and/or UCLA's Kevin Love. And what seems to go missing from the comparisons to Beasley is that Hansbrough plays for an especially talented team, something that Beasley lacks (and I would argue that UCLA is more like K-State than UNC). Do I respect Hansbrough's accomplishments? Absolutely. Does he have game? No question. Is he the most valuable collegiate player in America? Not a chance.

It's time for the honeymoon to end. Bilas, Vitale, and all sports writers need to moderate their emotion with a reasoned approach to the racism that underpins their hyperbole.

Can we finally end the rhetoric about the beauty of American capitalism?

With the Federal Reserve stepping in to the tune of $30 billion dollars to save struggling financial institutions like Bear Stearns, the flood gates have been opened. The Wall Street barons who make millions will be protected from their own greed. And you and I will pay the bill. After all, they only pay the flat-rate capital gains tax, not the substantially higher federal income tax. So, yes, you and I will pay for their financial well-being.

Do I want the US economy to collapse? No, but I don't really feel like suffering for the poor judgment of a bunch of colossal jerks. What I also cannot bear is that the same administration that praises this intervention on behalf of these profiteers is all to willing to curtail assistance to poor children. This is the same administration that claimed fiscal propriety rather than provide health care to more children. What a bunch of crap!

So here's what I want to know: where can I apply for my share of the $30 billion dollars? Oh, that's right, I'm not rich enough to need help.

The theme of this week in politics is race. Nope, that's not my theme. That is the theme.

The week started with comments from former Vice Presidential Candidate Geraldine Ferraro. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Barack Obama characterized this as "patently absurd". Hillary Clinton described the attack as "unfortunate".

Ferraro followed up those comments by saying, "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" Ferraro remained an adviser on Clinton's national finance committee. Finally on Thursday, Ferraro resigned. As far as I know, she was never asked for her resignation.

Ironically, on Thursday the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was thrust on the national news media. Wright was the lead pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's home congregation. Wright is demonized for making statements that violate the white-bread, corporate American myth that America is infallible. "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God bless America’? No, no, no. Not God bless America. God damn America.” In another sermon he said, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

On Friday, Obama categorically condemned these comments. I understand why he did so. The comments violate our national myth of infallibility. Of course, the facts aren't really in question. Our penal culture is undeniable. America uses terrorism as one of its tactics around the world. Ronald Reagan supported the Apartheid regime. And no president in American history has attempted to protect Palestinians while in office (Carter has tried in the last decade). So what is so appalling?

On Meet the Press, Michelle Norris argued that the real problem is Wright's tone. Apparently no one has the right to feel righteous indignation about a country that enslaved and disenfranchised people based on color for more than 150 years. No one has the right to acknowledge that the "powers that be" have violated the very ideals that most Americans believe are fundamental to their identity as Americans. The problem is not tone. After all, exactly this kind of indignation is being thrown around this morning by right-wing evangelists across America. The media isn't complaining about those bigots! No, the problem is race and the American crackers who rely on the specter of the angry black man to defend their own racism.

But here's the real point: the Clinton campaign is quiet on this issue, and their silence is more telling than Obama's attempts to distance his campaign from Reverend Wright. On a week when their surrogate used racism to stoke the gender question, the fact that they have been quiet is damning for all people who are committed to ending racism in America. I am not claiming that the Clinton campaign is behind this (although it would not surprise me), but how can the Clinton's proclaim that their candidacy is in the best interest of black communities when they cannot acknowledge the very real pain that underlies the comments of Reverend Wright and people of conscience in America and around the world?

No, they aren't interested in your pain. They are only interested in their power. Which is a position that is eerily reminiscent of a literary character who has been hotly followed by children around the world, "There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it." Perhaps it isn't just the Republicans who are for Voldemort.

This weekend I realized how much I rely on ESPN.com. Curious about how I came to this realization? Well, here goes...

The problems started Friday night. Every time I loaded ESPN's website, my browser would freeze. Then almost any site that used Flash would freeze. I thought maybe I had overloaded my browser by having too many windows open at one time. Plus, as a Firefox junkie, I know that there is still a slight memory leak. So, I thought I would try Safari just to see what would happen. Safari reacted the same way. Tired, I shut down my laptop and decided to look at it in the morning.

Saturday didn't improve anything. Sites like IMDB weren't loading, but it was the lack of ESPN which was most frustrating. How am I supposed to check basketball scores? Who's winning Ere Divisie games? ARGH! I did some looking at my system log, where I discovered an error being reported from my NVIDIA graphics card. As I did some research online, I started to become concerned that my new Mac Book Pro was going to require a new graphics card.

But I thought I would call Apple support to see if there was anything short of replacement that could be done. It turns out that ESPN's website had something that was corrupting the Adobe Flash player. The customer support agent was nice, but couldn't tell me anything specific about the problem other than to avoid the website. After uninstalling and reinstalling the Flash player, everything worked correctly again.

Of course, I got a lot of work done, as a consequence of not being able to browse the web. Helen and I finished her CV and cover letters. I wrote a web development contract and job estimate that is overdue. This morning I even wrote terms of use for my company's website and hosting services, as well as starting a privacy statement. At this rate, I can do enough work to finish my tax reporting by the end of the afternoon!

Note to ESPN: fix the problem soon! Otherwise, I'll be forced to find some place else to get my sports news.

I'm watching Ralph Nader on Meet the Press and it is making me sick. Mr. Nader has just declared that he is seeking the Presidency. It isn't yet clear whether he is running as the Green Party candidate or is truly independent.

Ralph Nader has been accused of stealing the 2000 election for George Bush. That's a load of crap! Sure, Gore might have won if Nader was not on the ballot, but Gore lost that election by failing to address his communication problems. All of that has nothing to do with my refusal to support Nader's candidacy.

My rejection of Mr. Nader's candidacy (and the any other third party candidate) is grounded in a rejection of the "presidency-first" political strategy. I do not believe in voting for a candidate whose party cannot even garner a seat in Congress. Even though my politics are most closely aligned with the Green party, I will never vote for their presidential candidate so long as they don't have a member of Congress. And "Independents" are not my standard. "Independents" are not "Greens". I do not believe that a party that can govern on that scale if they haven't demonstrated the ability to govern on a less daunting scale.

Mr. Nader is continually pressing his website, VoteNader.org. He just touted the website as the most user-driven website of any presidential candidate in history. When I went there, let me show you what I found. If you don't give them your name and email address, they won't tell you what they are about. What a bunch of crap! This website is the least user-friendly, user-driven site of any of the remaining candidates! Nader needs a new technology adviser who isn't just a marketer.

Ralph Nader has done incredibly good work as a crusader against corporate malfeasance. But Nader is a cancer on our political body, just like the right-wing sound machine!