Stuff, etc.

You can't spell Twitter without TWIT.

Another reason not to like the NBA. Appears all the talent is going to be concentrated in six or eight teams. The rest are apparently just there to get clobbered by the major media market clubs.
So, hurry and shell out for those season tickets to watch your city's team get its collective head bashed in 60-plus times a year. Don't all stampede to the ticket windows at once.
Maybe they should cut the NBA to the NHL level of pre-1967: Six teams. So the big cities get their big stars and the rest of the country isn't asked to play the role of cannon fodder.

By NBA standards, the Green Bay-Pittsburgh Super Bowl earlier this month would be considered a disaster. Funny, but that game set viewership records. Without a New York, Boston, Chicago or Los Angeles involved. And last year? New Orleans-Indianapolis.
That's why the NFL and Major League Baseball -- and the NHL, for that matter -- all have a better league than the NBA. Somebody outside the top four or five TV markets gets a chance to win.
Can't really say that about college football, though. The odds are that only a handful of the 100-plus so-called major college teams have any real chance to compete for the national title -- or ever will.
Anybody envision a Northwestern-Vanderbilt title game? Anybody?
Wyoming? Mississippi State? Wake Forest? UTEP? Memphis? The list of no-chance schools goes on and on.

Having Wisconsin Democrats hiding out rather than face a vote they know they're going to lose is both silly and futile. Didn't work in Texas a couple of years back either.
On the other hand, doesn't busting unions -- which is what Wisconsin's governor is up to -- take power away from the people and put more power in the hands of government?  Used to be that the GOP stood for less government, not more.
Not that Republicans ever had much use for unions ...

It could be said to some extent that unions have largely served their purpose.
Workers are far better off than they were 80 years ago, and now the unions seem more interested in protecting members who can't do their jobs than in producing quality American goods.
Still, when a state government agrees to collective bargaining, does the agreement state UNTIL WE CHANGE OUR MIND? Or is our leaders' word no better today than it was to Native Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries?