Coronavirus humor: The good, the bad and the sarcastic

Everyone’s up in arms over the novel coronavirus, aka COVID-19 (its droid name). But if you can’t beat it, make fun of it. So, here’s the good news and the bad news about the panic and pandemic that’s sweeping the nation Gangnam Style, faster than Beanie Babies amped up on caffeine and My Little Pony if her name was Secretariat.

Beer (burp)

• The good news: Corona Extra beer won’t give you coronavirus.

• The bad news: Corona Extra won’t give you any extra protection from it, either – unless you get drunk at home, pass out and don’t go out. Well, I guess that’s one way to self-quarantine.

• More bad news: You won’t be able to get that Corona Extra as easily, because they’re closing down the bars. What’s Norm Peterson gonna do?

• The good news: This means fewer drunk drivers on the road and fewer bad pickup lines. It means fewer alcoholics falling off the wagon. It also means fewer people doing screechy, off-key karaoke renditions of Love Shack, Unchained Melody and Paradise by the Dashboard Light. Except in the shower, where they’ll (hopefully) be washing all those icky germs off themselves.

• The bad news: Our lives will be a lot more Closing Time and a lot less One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer.

Social (antisocial!)

• The bad news: We’re stuck with another artificial, overused buzz phrase: “social distancing.”

• The worse news: It doesn’t apply to social media. So now, people will spend more time yelling at each other about politics, blocking each other and spreading conspiracy theories about coronavirus because they’re stuck in the house with nothing better to do.

• The good news: Did you hear? They’re working on a vaccine for the coronavirus!

• The bad news: The antivaxxers will refuse to take it and spread the word on social media while they’re “social distancing.” So more people will get sick, anyway.

• The good news: We’ve got more polite way to tell salesmen, religious doorbell-ringers and garden-variety SOBs to fuck off.

• The bad news: It’s a lot more satisfying to just tell them to fuck off.

School’s out (completely)

• The good news: Kids have to be loving the fact that they don’t have to go to school. Thanks to the coronavirus and the reactions/overreactions of elected officials, school’s out completely (to quote Alice Cooper).

• The bad news: They won’t actually learn anything, in which case they may not graduate and won’t go to college.

• The good news: They won’t take out student loans and be saddled with a lifetime of debt.

• The good news: Kids are less susceptible to the effects of coronavirus, which means future generations are safe, bless their little hearts.

• The bad news: This includes middle-school students, who should probably spend three years in quarantine anyway for their own safety — and everyone else’s.

Play ball (not)

• The bad news: They canceled spring training.

• The good news: The Astros won’t be playing.

• The bad news: They canceled the NCAA Tournament.

• The good news (for Vince McMahon): The XFL might get more people to watch, except ...

• The bad news (also for Vince McMahon): They canceled that, too.

• The worse news: The Summer Olympics are coming up. (Forgot about that, didn’t you?). They only come along once every four years, so if they’re canceled, it will be a long wait for the next swimming, 100-meter dash and badminton gold medals. Yes, badminton really is a team sport. No, American football is not. Sorry, XFL castaways.

Endangered species (nonhuman variety)

• The bad news: It’s a “pandemic.”

• The good news: That doesn’t pandas are dying, just people. This is actually really good news, because there are only about 1,500 giant pandas living in the wild, and more people than that have already died from the coronavirus.

It’s the economy (stupid)

• The good news: Maybe dinosaur corporations will finally figure out the advantages of telecommuting and the tedium of worthless meetings.

• The bad news: No, they probably won’t.

• The bad news: The stock market’s down.

• The good news: All those rich one-percenter corporate thieves are seeing their unearned profits go down the toilet.

• The bad news: They’ll pass the pain on to the rest of us and keep living the high life, anyway. Coronavirus trickles down a lot faster than those profits, which never seen to go viral, do they?

• The good news: We don’t have to attend dinner parties thrown by people we don’t like and have nothing in common with, and pretend to like them just so we can drum up business.

• The bad news: We won’t be drumming up business. We won’t be drumming up anything. We’ll be like Led Zeppelin after John Bonham died. No drums. Nada.

Politics (estranged bedfellows)

• The good news: Cable news is covering something other than impeachment, election news and politicians being politicians.

• The bad news: We’ll get sick of 24-7 coronavirus coverage just as quickly. (Yes, I wrote “get sick of it” on purpose.)

• The bad news: We’ll be getting more medical bills.

• The worse news: We don’t have universal health care, and it doesn’t look like we’ll be getting it anytime soon.

• The good news: Because they can’t afford it, sick people will be staying home instead of going to the hospital and infecting others. Isn’t that a form of social distancing?

• The bad news: They may wind up dead because they’re not getting treated.

• The worse news: Politicians don’t care enough to do anything about it.

• The rule: Candidates want you to avoid large crowds.

• The exception: Except, of course, at polling places on Election Day … but only if you’re voting for them. Your health is sooooo important to them, unless it interferes with their political prospects!

Literary (and scary)

• The good news: Since this is a novel coronavirus, you won’t get it from reading nonfiction.

• The better news: Actually, you won’t get it from reading novels, either.

• The best news: You’ll have a lot more time to read, now that you don’t have anything else to do ...

• The bad news: A lot of you will binge-watch The Walking Dead instead, which means you won’t be reading my wife’s exciting Mad World trilogy about zombie apocalypse that’s triggered by (you guessed it) a pandemic.

• The good news: That pandemic involves a strain of the black plague and is a whole lot worse than what’s happening with the coronavirus.

• The bad news: Coronavirus ain’t fictional. In fact, it’s a big enough pain that it could drive you to drink. Hey, man, pass the Corona! Cheers! Did I just say “hey, man”? I’m starting to sound like Joe Biden. I think I need something stronger!

Why Democrats care more about stopping Sanders than beating Trump

It’s Super Tuesday. This is why I’m not a Democrat. It’s not about the issues, it’s about the way the Democratic Party treats people who don’t kowtow to its leaders. Like we don’t matter and we need to get in line. We need to “unite” for the common good.

“Unite.” I cringe when I hear that word. When politicians use it, they really mean this: “Do it my way, or else.”

It doesn’t mean getting together and solving problems in an actual give-and-take. It doesn’t mean collaboration or even compromise. It means either you get with the program set by our corporate donors, or you’ll be labeled a troublemaker or worse: a poser or a backstabber or a spy.

Oh, Democrats don’t come out and use these words the way, say, Donald Trump does. But they exert the same kind of political pressure under the table to make sure you don’t rock the boat. They badmouth you on social media and blame you for elections they lost through their own incompetence – because taking personal responsibility has never been their strong suit.

Whenever Trump talks about unity, what he really means is loyalty. Blind loyalty. And the events of the past few days show that Democrats, for all their talk of openness and inclusivity, operate by exactly the same code.

We know where blind loyalty got the Republicans: It got them Trump, a president who’s made a mockery of our nation in the eyes of the world and more than half our own citizens. But not only that, he’s also run roughshod over ideals the Republican Party itself once held sacred, whether you agree with them or not, like free trade and fiscal conservatism.

And now, the Democratic Party is doing precisely the same thing. It’s easy to think of Democrats as the party wrought by the Clintons and, to a lesser extent, Barack Obama – a party of caution that teeters on the verge on paranoia about the mere possibility of offending anyone. Don’t offend the PC police on the left, but don’t offend your corporate donors on the right, either, by daring to defend people who are being forced to choose between the cost of their prescriptions and bankruptcy. Or death.

The idea of free healthcare isn’t “revolutionary.” Every other civilized country does it (or perhaps I should say every civilized country does it and omit the “other,” because any country that puts profits over people isn’t civilized in my book).

The media labels Democrats who hold this position as “moderate,” but that’s a relative term. You’d probably consider the coronavirus as moderate when compared to ebola on the one hand and a common cold on the other, but that doesn’t mean you wan’t to catch it. Letting people die for lack of healthcare isn’t a “moderate” position, it’s an inhumane one.

Democratic devolution

We forget that it wasn’t always this way. The Democratic Party wasn’t always a creature of Super PACs and safe spaces. Once upon a time, it was the party of bold ideas that shone a spotlight on inequity and dared to dream of a better world – and not just dream of it, demand it! Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson fought for the kind of programs today’s Democrats are fighting against. Hell, Republican icon Teddy Roosevelt fought harder for equality and social justice than any of today’s “neoliberals.” These are men and women who give lip service to such ideals ... while taking money under the table to maintain the status quo.

Correction: Not under the table. The rules now make it perfectly legal to pursue financial conflicts of interest. This is the world we live in.

I remember a time when a gay politician named Harvey Milk died fighting for equality. Today, a gay politician named Pete Buttigieg would let Americans die to protect insurance company profits.

And he’s not alone.

In fact, the “neoliberals” spawned by Bill Clinton’s shift to the right a quarter-century ago are fighting harder against the idea of universal healthcare than they are against Donald Trump’s corporate giveaways.

Want to talk about unity? Why is the Democratic Party uniting against Bernie Sanders – a candidate whose platform builds on the bold social and economic ideas of FDR and LBJ? And why are they willing to do so on behalf of a two-time loser known for verbal gaffes who hadn’t won a primary in 32 years of trying before Saturday? A candidate who voted in favor of the Iraq War and didn’t stand up for Anita Hill?

Protecting their turf

There’s an easy answer to that.

But first, I’ll tell you why they’re not doing it. They’re not doing it for “Uncle Joe.” They’re not even doing it because they think it’s their best chance of defeating Trump. Oh, that’s their excuse, but it doesn’t hold up against polls that show Sanders does just as well against Trump as anyone else in the field.

Lately, they’re also saying it will hurt down-ballot candidates to have Sanders at the top of the ticket. Of course, they have zero proof of this, and it fails to take into account that the Sanders’ base is far more energized than the Biden base could ever dream of being.

Energized voters drive turnout. Democrats saw what that did for Trump, but they don’t care about that, either.

Nor do they care about the “next generation.” If they did, they’d be fighting for free education (something we’ve managed to provide at the primary and secondary levels for more than a century) and the forgiveness of student debt. No, to them, the younger generation is a nuisance, just as it was in the 1960s when they were protesting Vietnam and demanding equality for minority citizens. Back then, they said young people should be seen and not heard. They were too loud and cared too much, just like Sanders’ supporters today.

That’s why the old-guard Democratic leaders don’t like them. They like them even less than they like Trump.

They may say they’re fighting against Sanders because they want to beat Trump, but that just doesn’t pass the smell test. Otherwise they wouldn’t be following the exact same losing strategy they did in 2016, when they nominated the least popular Democratic candidate in history because she was the darling of the donor class. Like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden the kind of candidate that loses every time – establishment hacks who rely on big-money donations and believe they should inherit the presidency because it’s “their turn.”

Hubert Humphrey. Walter Mondale. Al Gore. John Kerry. Hillary Clinton. What do they have in common? They were all career politicians. And they all lost.

The candidates who’ve won for the Democrats in the last half-century have all been outsiders who galvanized the youth vote: Carter, Bill Clinton and Obama. Bernie Sanders fits far better into that tradition of winners than does Joe Biden, but it scarcely matters, because, again, Democrats don’t want to win. (Remember, they wanted Hillary Clinton in 2008, too.) They’d rather keep the younger generation in its place and keep the money flowing in.

Incidentally, that’s another reason Sanders scares them: He’s a heretic who relies on small donors rather than super PACs. He’s cut the purse strings. And to make matters worse he’s not even a Democrat.

Oh, the humanity!

What scares Democrats

If Democrats really wanted to beat Trump, they’d be attacking Trump, not Sanders. But the fact is, they view Sanders as a bigger threat to their power than Trump is. And it’s their power, not the country, that matters most to them. Of course, this is the exact same approach taken by Republicans in remaining loyal to Trump – despite the fact that he’s a blithering idiot and a con man. They do so because they see Republican “Never Trumpers” as a bigger threat to them than Democrats. Trump himself referred to them as “human scum.”

Again, the Democrats aren’t as blunt about expressing themselves. They may not say Sanders is human scum, they just treat him like he is. Because they’re scared of him the same way Trump and his minions are scared of the “Never Trumpers.” They back Trump, not because they like him, but because they’re afraid what will happen to them if they don’t.

Democrats are backing Joe Biden for the same reason. These are the same Democrats who railed against GOP senators for their lack of courage during the impeachment proceedings. And they’re showing the very same kind of cowardice now.

Why? It’s not because they’re afraid Sanders will lose. It’s because they’re afraid he’ll win and remake the party the same way Trump has. Except he wouldn’t remake it as a protection racket with a two-bit mob boss at the top of a shrinking pyramid. He’d remake it as a party that values health, the environment and education as human rights, rather than as commodities to be exploited for profit or denied to those who can’t afford them.

The ones who are doing the exploiting are the same corporate control freaks donating to the Democratic establishment. They cover their bets by contributing to both sides: Dems and Republicans alike. It’s not that they care whether one side or the other wins: They couldn’t care less. They merely want to keep both sides in their pockets, so they win regardless of the outcome.

Democrats used to believe in things like bold social and economic reform, the programs championed by FDR, LBJ and, now, Bernie Sanders. It doesn’t anymore, and that’s why I’m not a Democrat. I agree with many of the ideals Democrats claim to espouse, I just happen to believe those ideals are more important than labels or tribal loyalty. Those are things Trump promotes, which is one of the reasons I’m not a Republican, either. I can’t speak for Bernie Sanders, but maybe that’s why he, too, is not a Democrat.

If the Democrats succeed in foisting off a status quo candidate on the electorate this fall, I won’t forget it, and neither will a lot of other people. They can talk about “unity” until they’re blue in the face, but all I’ll hear is a bunch of rich, bought-and-paid-for puppets trying to tell me what to do. Sorry, I’m not buying it. And I will never forgive the Democrats for forcing me to choose between two parties that have utterly abandoned their principles: one led by a corrupt corporate class and the other by a two-bit wannabe dictator.

If they lose, the Democrats won’t blame their own shortsighted, sellout strategy. They’ll blame voters who stayed home because they weren’t excited about the guy they nominated. Or they’ll try. If they do, most of the people they try to blame will probably just shrug and continue staying home. They’ll have had enough of the bullshit, and they’ll figure they just can’t make a difference – which is a shame, because that’s supposed to be the purpose of democracy: making a difference.

Even if the Democrats win, the damage to the party will be incalculable in the long run. Disillusioned young people will become more disillusioned and less engaged. But then again, I don’t think the donor Democrats really care as long as the money keeps rolling in. A New York Times headline said it all: “Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Sanders.”

It’s not a risk. It’s a guarantee.

Photo by Gage Skidmore, used under Creative Commons 2.0 license

Healthcare and highways: Lessons of history forgotten

We Americans have a selective memory. And we trust labels over facts.

Anyone who doubts this only has to look at two words: Infrastructure and healthcare. Infrastructure is supposed to be something that “everyone agrees on.” Who doesn’t want better roads? And who has a problem with the government paying for them?

We view good highways as a human right. Healthcare? Not so much.

But it wasn’t always this way. There was a time, back in the late 1800s, when our roads were in terrible shape. If you wanted to use yesterday’s highways, you had to depend on private businesses to surface and maintain them.

Why would businesses want to do that? The only ones with any incentive were merchants, and manufacturers who needed them to distribute goods. Naturally, the roads used by these merchants and manufacturers were in decent shape. The rest of them were barely passable – if at all. If those businesses weren’t on a direct route, tough luck. You, the ordinary traveler, had to go out of your way to be sure they were getting their money’s worth.

Sometimes, a long way out of your way. Halfway decent roads back then were a maze of twists and turns and double-backs.

The private businesses that forced everyone to go out of their way weren’t in it as a public service. Like today’s insurance companies and drug makers, they wanted to make money. If travelers happened to benefit, that was fine. If they were inconvenienced or got stuck in the mud, that was fine, too. It didn’t matter to them.

Cyclists to the rescue

If you like the fact that today’s roads aren’t a bunch of rutted, muddy dirt trails, you’ve got the bicycle to thank for it.

Cyclists back in the late 1800s weren’t happy about the sorry state of the nation’s roads, so pressed for legislators to dedicate more money to improve what we now call “infrastructure.”

The prospect was expensive. The federal government resisted setting aside money for highways, preferring to kick the can back up the (dirt) road to states, counties and those private businesses.

But the movement picked up steam once farmers joined the cyclists in calling for better roads.

One cycling activist, Isaac Potter, published a plea to farmers detailing the cost of bad roads to their bottom line: He put it at $2.35 billion, which would translate to about $56 billion today – pretty close to Michael Bloomberg’s net worth.

Wagons broke down as a matter of routine; sometimes people were hurt or even killed.

Potter made another point, too: Roads in places like France, Belgium and Italy were well maintained – even country roads. The condition of these foreign roads stood in marked contrast to the terrible shape American highways were in. One early road advocate ranked them alongside Turkey’s roads as the worst in the world.

This was all back around 1900.

Flash forward to today, and the arguments on healthcare are eerily similar. Poor healthcare coverage costs the American economy billions of dollars in lost productivity. When people go bankrupt to pay obscene medical bills, it kills consumer spending: They’re no longer fueling the economy by spending on things like cars and Christmas gifts. And that’s not even mentioning the real price: People without health care suffer. They die. They leave loved ones behind who don’t know what they’ll ever do without them.

More than 100 years ago, other countries were building and maintaining roads while the United States was doing neither. Today, other countries are treating and curing patients, while the United States is – that’s right – doing neither.

The opposition

Back then, Americans responded. Starting in the 1920s, the federal government began kicking in serious money to build and maintain the nation’s highways. As part of that, the feds got to decide where the new highways went.

That didn’t sit too well with the merchants and manufacturers who had controlled where roads were built up to that point. They didn’t like the government deciding to bypass their businesses for the good of those who actually needed to use the road. They did everything they could to stop it from happening.

But they failed.

Today, drug companies and insurers won’t like being bypassed, either. Not for the sake of the people who need to use healthcare. Not for any reason. That’s why they’re fighting the idea of universal healthcare tooth and nail.

We’re all used to government funds paying for our roads. We don’t remember what it’s like before they did. Today, we view good roads as a human right. If we don’t have them, we get mad at the government and demand them. We don’t remember what it was like before the government paid for them, because we weren’t around then.

History and hypocrisy

If we did remember, though, we’d realize it was exactly what it’s like now with healthcare. Other countries provide it; ours doesn’t. Other countries are saving money because they’re willing to invest in something worthwhile. Something noble. We’re not.

If you want to dismiss universal healthcare as “socialism,” you’ll have to dismiss the federal road system, too.

But maybe we should flip things around and look at it the opposite way. What if we started viewing healthcare as human infrastructure? Without it, our society will break down, just as wagons broke down on those muddy, potholed 19th century roads. Our economy will suffer. People will die, too – and a lot more of them.

History forgotten is hypocrisy unleashed.

The history of our highways holds lessons for today’s healthcare crisis. It’s time we start listening and doing something to save the human infrastructure that’s crumbling right before our eyes.

Will the XFL survive? 5 reasons it might, 2 it probably won't

Before I did anything else for a living, I was a sportswriter. (Well, I washed dishes at a pizza place for three months, but I don’t count that.) And I’ve been following alternative sports leagues for most of my life, so naturally, the XFL drew my interest – just as the Alliance of American Football did last year.

I was bummed when the AAF folded eight weeks into its only season, just two weeks shy of the playoffs. I felt cheated. I live within driving distance of the Carolina Hurricanes, but I haven’t been to a single game of theirs because I’m still disgusted that their owner’s the guy who pulled the plug on the Alliance.

That said, I think I like the XFL better. Does that mean it has a chance to succeed where the Alliance and other offseason football leagues (WFL, USFL, Arena Football) ultimately failed? I think so. But how much of a chance? Read on.

Why the XFL might succeed

1. The Gambling

The XFL, like the AAF, is putting some of its eggs in the gambling basket, hoping that point spreads and over-under odds will stoke viewers’ interest. Sports fans love to gamble, and the XFL itself is gambling this will draw them in. It might.

The odds shift during the games, and the announcers make note of them, reminding viewers they can still get in on the action. This is either intriguing, if you like to gamble, or annoying as hell if you don’t and have tuned in just to watch football. I’m in the latter camp, so it doesn’t interest me, but it could build the kind of sustained interest the league needs to survive.

Obstacle No. 1: People don’t know as much about the teams or their players as they do about an established commodity like the NFL. And gamblers tend to be less willing to part with their money over unknowns.

Obstacle No. 2: If the XFL lasts more than one season, the odds are (pun intended) the commodity will remain in flux because players will be coming and going. That’s how it works in minor league baseball, and the XFL is, for all intents and purposes, a minor league – players view it as a potential stepping stone to the big time, not a place they want to hang their hats indefinitely.

2. The Markets

A few weeks into its first season, it’s already obvious the XFL has something the AAF was never quite able to establish: a professional look. It may be a minor league, but it looks a lot more like the NFL than the Alliance ever did.

There are a few reasons for this. First, it’s playing in prime media markets. Alliance teams were scattered in places like Salt Lake City, Birmingham and Orlando. No offense to those three cities, but they have precisely one big-time sports franchise among them (the Orlando Magic in the NBA). The XFL, by contrast, is in nine current NFL cities and one former site (St. Louis).

This means two things: First, it looks like it’s a top-tier endeavor, and second, it’s banking on sustaining interest that’s already there, thanks to the NFL, immediately after the NFL season ends.

There’s already talk of expansion, as there inevitably is with new leagues. But the league needs to make sure its founding members are stable first. Remember the World Football League, where franchises pulled up stakes overnight and moved (from Houston to Shreveport, New York to Charlotte) or folded altogether? That kills credibility. The USFL made the mistake of expanding too much too fast.

If I were the XFL, I’d look at maybe two sites for expansion if things are stable after Season 1. Prime candidates? I’d look the Bay Area, which is losing the Raiders and was the top attendance market for the XFL in its first incarnation. (The San Francisco Demons averaged 35,000 fans, more than any current XFL team is drawing.) I’d also consider San Antonio, the Alliance’s top draw, although a third team in Texas might be a bit much.

San Diego would be a great market if the Chargers’ betrayal hadn’t soured so many fans there on football in general, as witnessed by the tepid interest in the Alliance’s Fleet. One mildly hopeful sign for the XFL: the Los Angeles Wildcats drew 14,000 fans to their first game at Dignity Sports Park, where fewer home fans than road-team boosters showed up to watch the Los Angeles Chargers.

3. The TV Deal

The XFL also seems more like the big time because it’s on major television networks like ABC, ESPN and Fox. That’s something most spring football leagues can’t say. And all four of the league’s games are televised every week to everyone with access to those networks. That’s something even the NFL can’t say.

I remember when the old WFL was consigned to something called the TVS sports network, a syndicated outfit. It wasn’t exactly prime time. The USFL had a better deal, but left a four-year contract with ABC on the table to pursue Donald Trump’s (yes, that Donald Trump) ill-conceived fall strategy of competing head-to-head with the NFL in 1986.

If the XFL can keep its current television deal, it’s got a leg up on most of the leagues that came before it. That, of course, requires that it continues to get decent ratings, something the Alliance failed to sustain.

4. The Gimmicks

The XFL, like most alternative football leagues, has a few gimmicks designed to make the game more interesting. Unlike some of those other leagues, it’s chosen some good ones.

The main goal is to make the game more exciting and high-scoring, which is kind of the opposite of what the original XFL did (the idea there was to make it a sort of smash-mouth little brother to pro wrestling, minus the fixed storylines).

Teams have to kick off from the 30, and kickoffs into the end zone are brought back to the 35. If they go out of bounds, the ball comes all the way back to the kicking team’s 45! Punts outside the field of play are similarly discouraged, making it more likely teams will go for it on fourth down.

There’s also a cool 3-2-1 option on points after touchdown, which helps keep games within reach for trailing teams and adds an interesting element of strategy. The one thing coaches don’t seem to have figured out yet is that a 3-pointer from the 10-yard-line may be easier than going for 2 from the 5: You’re likely to throw for it in either case, and if you’re at the 10, you’ve got more real estate for receivers to run their routes.

Another cool innovation is that the clock stops after every play in the final two minutes of each half, which gives the trailing team a better chance of coming back to win – and keeps viewers engaged until the end. Up until that time, however, the play clock is just 25 seconds, which speeds up the game (although it probably tires out players a lot faster).

Despite all this, games haven’t been wild scoring affairs, largely because the teams didn’t have much practice time before it got started and the talent level just isn’t what it is in the NFL. Imagine what Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers would do with these rules. You might see a score like Saints 64, Packers 59.

5. The Deep Pockets

League founder Vince McMahon of WWE fame is loaded, and he says he’s willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the league.

If he does, that could help the XFL weather any early difficulties.

But that’s a big “if.” McMahon pulled the plug on the XFL after just one season the first time he tried this, back in 2001. And just last year, Tom Dundon swooped in and promised a $250 million infusion for the Alliance – only to renege and leave the AAF high and dry. I get it. Even guys with a lot of money don’t want to waste it (unless your name’s Bloomberg and you’re running for president).

But the point is, big money is no guarantee of success for spring leagues. On the other hand, not having big money is pretty much a guarantee of failure. So the XFL still has an advantage, at least for now.

Why the XFL will likely fail

With all that going for it, the XFL has got to survive, right? Not necessarily. In fact, it probably won’t. Call me a cynic, but the league has two very big things going against it.

1. History

Alternative sports leagues just don’t make it. Yes, there’s the old AFL, but it didn’t survive on its own – it forced a merger with the NFL (its predecessor, the AAFC, did the same thing). The WNBA is doing well, but it’s bankrolled by the NBA. The first women’s pro basketball league had exciting stars like Ann Meyers, the high-scoring Molly Bolin and Nancy Lieberman, but it lasted only three years.

The sports landscape is littered with alternative leagues that didn’t make it. The WFL, USFL, Federal League (baseball), Major Indoor Soccer League, Arena Football League, National Bowling League... The list goes on and on.

Why should the XFL be any different? You might point to the reasons above, but then there’s the reason below:

2. Attention Spans

More now than ever before, they’re limited. In the Twitter world, people glance at something for a few seconds, and if it doesn’t hold their interest, they’re on to the next thing.

The Alliance learned that last year. It had a lot of interest the first week, but after that, TV ratings fell off a cliff and attendance was lackluster. There was a time when Arena Football had a sort of cool cachet, back in the ’90s when future NFL Hall of Famer Kurt Warner was slinging passes for the Iowa Barnstormers, but it dwindled to four or five teams before vanishing last year. Hardly anyone even noticed.

The XFL’s attendance has been only marginally better than the AAF’s so far, and McMahon’s deep pockets will only sustain it for so long. The fact that the hoped-for scoring binges haven’t materialized is another worrying sign. But even high-scoring games didn’t save Arena Football.

I’ll probably keep watching the XFL this season, just because I enjoy football and I’m fascinated to see how this all plays out. I’m just not sure if there are enough oddballs like me out there to keep the league going.

I hope so, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Featured photo of a New York Guardians XFL game at Met Life Stadium by Ajay Suresh, used under a Creative Commons 2.0 license.

25 Best (Underrated) Rock Anthems of All Time

On Life RSS

Stephen H. Provost is the author of Pop Goes the Metal: Hard Rock, Hairspray, Hooks & Hits, chronicling the evolution of pop metal from its roots in the 1960s through its heyday as “hair metal” in the 1980s and beyond. It’s available on Amazon.

There aren’t many things more subjective than a “best of” music list. And, since I like music — and being subjective, I thought I’d put together my own. My first subject of choice? The rock anthem.

Even the definition of a rock anthem is subjective. A site called DigitalDreamDoor, which compiled its own list, described it as: “a powerful, celebratory rock song with arena-rock sound often with lyrics celebrating rock music itself and simple sing-a-long choruses, chants, or hooks.” I like that definition, so I figured I’d use it as a starting point here.

But be warned: You won’t agree with everything on this list. You won’t find most of the obvious choices here, even if they’re among my favorites. (Examples: “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” “Born to Run” and “Rock and Roll All Nite.” And no, streetlight people, you won’t find “Don’t Stop Believin’” here, either.)

What you’ll find below are my selections of underappreciated anthems from the 1970s through the new millennium. They’re not necessarily the most popular or most played. In fact, I went out of my way to pick some surprising tracks that probably won’t appear on many lists.

So here goes:

25. The Final Countdown – Europe, 1986

Yeah, it’s a synth riff, but it’s still a killer riff. An almost one-hit-wonder (this Swedish band also charted with “Carrie” from the ’80s), this song was all over MTV in the hair-metal days. But it seldom appears on any list of anthems, so I wanted it on mine.

24. Spirit of Radio – Rush, 1980

“The words of the prophets are written on the studio walls.” Indeed. The more obvious choice might be their biggest hit, “Tom Sawyer,” but this one came out a year earlier... and I like it better. I actually like “Freewill” off the same album (“Permanent Waves”) better, but this fit more the definition of an anthem better.

23. Do You Remember Rock ’n’ Roll Radio – Kiss, 2003

The Ramones came out with the original version of this tune in 1979, but I prefer KISS’ version on the 2003 tribute album, “We’re a Happy Family.” Sure, most KISS fans would choose “Rock and Roll All Nite,” but as iconic as that tune is, I’ve heard it so often I wanted something different, and this cover is surprisingly good, especially since it isn’t from their golden era.

22. It’s My Life – Bon Jovi, 1999

Most people would probably choose “Livin’ on a Prayer,” right? Well, this later selection – from the 1999 release “Crush” is every bit as much of an in-your-face affirmation and just as catchy, in my book. It’s only disadvantage was the fact that it wasn’t included on the mammoth smash CD “Slippery When Wet.” Still, it was a No. 1 hit in Europe.

21. Working for the Weekend – Loverboy, 1981

Confession: This one is a guilty pleasure of a karaoke track for me. I never owned a Loverboy album, and I doubt I ever would, but this track is easily the catchiest and most anthemic song they ever put out. The lead track from their smash sophomore release, “Get Lucky,” it got all the way to No. 2 on the Billboard Album Rock Tracks chart.

20. I’m Gonna Win – Foreigner, 1981

Foreigner’s fourth album, aptly titled “4” had two No. 1 Mainstream Rock hits and a No. 3 entry in the form the anthem “Juke Box Hero.” The band never released the album’s other anthem as a single, but it was just as good – better, I think. “I’m Gonna Win” is the perfect soundtrack for anyone determined to overcome an obstacle. That’s why I chose it.

19. All Fired Up – Pat Benatar, 1988

The lead track off Benatar’s “Wide Awake in Dreamland” LP, “All Fired Up” just barely cracked the top 20, peaking at No. 19. It was actually Benatar’s last song to even chart on the Billboard Hot 100. She’s better known for “Love is a Battlefield” and the similarly anthemic “Invincible,” but you’d be hard-pressed to find a more empowering song than this one in her catalog. Or, for that matter, anywhere.

18. I Hate Myself for Loving You – Joan Jett, 1988

Every bit as catchy as her monster hit “I Love Rock and Roll,” which topped the charts seven years earlier, this tune came from the former Runaway’s sixth album, “Up Your Alley.” It got as high as No. 8, making it her third, and last top 10 hit. A virtuoso at cranking out cover songs that were harder-hitting than the originals, Jett actually co-wrote this one herself, with Desmond Child.

17. The Golden Age of Rock ‘n’ Roll – Mott the Hoople, 1974

Not as well known as the David Bowie-penned “All the Young Dudes,” this was nonetheless a standout track from the British band, which took it to No. 16 on the UK singles chart. If I had my druthers, I’d go with Def Leppard’s 2006 cover version, but I promised to limit myself to one selection per artist. If I hadn’t, I’d have four or five Def Leppard songs on this list.

16. American Idiot – Green Day, 2004

I had to include something by Green Day. The only question was whether it would be this one or “Basket Case.” I chose the title track to their 2004 chart-topping album of the same name mainly for the lyrics: “Don't wanna be an American idiot – One nation controlled by the media – Information Age of hysteria – It's calling out to idiot America.” They just didn’t know how bad it would get.

15. 20th Century Boy – T. Rex, 1973

No, not “Get it On (Bang a Gong).” Unlike that one, this far more anthemic selection never was a hit in the states. There’s no accounting for taste. One of the heaviest tunes Marc Bolan and company ever put out, it’s another one that was covered admirably by Def Leppard in 2006. Despite Bolan’s lack of hits in the U.S., T. Rex made it into the Rock and Roll Hall Fame this year – and deservedly so.

14. The Middle – Jimmy Eat World, 2001

Jimmy Eat World was one of my favorite alternative rock bands around the turn of the 21st century, and this was by far their biggest hit, a serenade for anyone who feels like they’ve taken a gut punch from life. “Hey, don’t write yourself off yet. It’s only in your head you feel left out and looked down on.” It hit No. 1 on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart.

13. Teenagers – My Chemical Romance, 2007

I never got into My Chemical Romance, but somehow this song and its follow up, “Desolation Row,” both stuck with me. “Teenagers” only hit No. 67 on the Billboard chart (“Desolation Row” didn’t even make the Hot 100), a far cry from their biggest release, the previous years’ “Welcome to the Black Parade,” which got to No. 9. But a catchier tune is hard to find.

12. Rock ‘n’ Roll Damnation – AC/DC, 1978

For my money, “Highway to Hell” and “Back in Black” can’t hold a candle to this revved-up rocker off “Powerage,” which didn’t even chart in the U.S. Not that AC/DC ever was a singles band, anyway. Despite that, at my high school, the local album rock station was already playing AC/DC in such heavy rotation I got sick of them. I never got sick of this one, though.

11. Love is Like a Rock – Donnie Iris, 1982

Donnie Iris never looked much like a rocker, even after he stopped going by Dominic Ierace. The guy always seemed like someone had kidnapped Buddy Holly, given him a New Wave makeover, and transplanted him in the 1980s. But looks can be deceiving. This is an amazingly simple but absolutely killer track that was his only Mainstream Rock top 10 entry, at No. 9.

10. Fight for Your Right – Beastie Boys, 1986

I swear, when this single off the Beastie Boys’ debut album exploded onto the radio in’86, I had no idea they were a hip-hop band. I didn’t even know what hip hop was. This sounded like the epitome of hard rock rebellion, the kind of hook-laden powerhouse that made “We’re Not Gonna Take It” sound like a lullaby. Still, in my opinion, the best thing they ever released.

9. There’s Only One Way to Rock – Sammy Hagar, 1982

I confess, I’m a Van Hagar guy. David Lee Roth’s whooping and posing never did it for me. The Red Rocker was a meat-and-potatoes good-time partier who could actually play guitar. And this, just his second top 40 hit on the rock chart, is more of an anthem (closest competition: “Right Now”) than anything he or DLR ever put out with Eddie and Alex.

8. Draw the Line – Aerosmith, 1977

The album of the same name was, in many ways, a disappointing follow-up to the one-two punch of “Toys in the Attic” and “Rocks.” But the title track was killer. Everyone remembers “Walk This Way,” and rightfully so, but Joe Perry’s guitar riff on this was big enough to carry the whole album. The band was in the twilight of its golden era and had to hit rock bottom before resurrecting itself a decade later.

7. Rock Brigade – Def Leppard, 1980

Def Leppard’s second single off their second album didn’t chart, but I heard it on the radio, and I was sold. It was a close call between this one, “Let’s Get Rocked” and “Rock of Ages” on which would make the list. But this was my first impression of the band, and it definitely stayed with me. Oddly, I never bought this album (“On Through the Night”), but I’ve picked up every one since.

6. Queen – We Will Rock You (Live in Montreal), 1981

This may be the only “obvious” choice on the list, and it tops many others’ anthem rundowns. But there’s a twist: This is not the album version, it’s a revved-up, double-speed racer from Queen’s double-live “Killers” album, recorded in Montreal four years after the studio version came out. It’s even more of a balls-out rocker than the original. That’s why it’s on the list.

5. No Matter What – Lillian Axe, 1992

Yes, this is obscure. This New Orleans-based band never placed even one single on the charts, but they did put out a handful of sophisticated yet hard and heavy albums in over the years. This particular tune got into rotation on MTV. It was a cover of the old Badfinger hit, and – as much as I love Badfinger – it just blows the original away. It’s even better than Def Leppard’s cover, which is saying something.

4. Immigrant Song – Led Zeppelin, 1970

It’s odd, in a way, that Zep didn’t put out any anthems. Some folks might cite “Rock and Roll” as their definitive contribution to the style. But I’d put this one ahead of it. Robert Plant’s opening wail is rivaled only by Paul Stanley’s for Kiss’ “Heaven’s On Fire,” and the rest of “Immigrant Song” doesn’t let up a bit. It sounds just like a Viking invasion, and the line “hammer of the gods” became a signature for the band.

3. Action – Sweet, 1976

For many U.S. fans, the Sweet-est anthem might be “Ballroom Blitz.” U.K. fans would probably prefer “Block Buster.” Either would be a worthy choice. But this track off “Give Us a Wink” really cemented Sweet’s status as more than bubblegum rockers. Unfortunately, the band went downhill shortly thereafter, hindered by the (now late) lead vocalist Brian Connelly’s substance abuse.

2. Represent – Weezer, 2010

Weezer isn’t the kind of band you’d expect to put out an anthem, but when they decided to do so, they hit it out of the park. You won’t find this song on any of their albums. They dropped it free on iTunes in 2010 to mark the U.S. soccer team’s first meeting with England in 60 years. The song is dripping with fist-pumping swagger. Oh, the game? It ended in a 1-1 draw.

1. Uprising – Muse, 2009

I’m from the Classic Rock era, but like my No. 2 choice, this isn’t a Classic Rock arena anthem. I couldn’t name another Muse song if you asked me, but this is darn near the perfect anthem. “Uprising” hit No. 1 on the Alternative Songs chart, fueled by some of the most defiant lyrics: “They will not force us. They will stop degrading us. They will not control us. We will be victorious. (So come on!)”

Top photo: KISS in 2013, Wikimedia Commons

Trump laughs as Democrats do his dirty work for him

Someone needs to tell the Democrats running for president to watch Independence Day. Or maybe brush up on their history of World War II.

See, there’s this concept of banding together against a common enemy that they just don’t seem to understand.

For all the hand-wringing about Donald Trump and how he’s changed the game — and the stakes — in this year’s presidential election, Democrats this primary season are operating as though it’s business as usual.

Instead of focusing their fire on that common enemy, they’ve circled the wagons ... and set their sights on one another. Joe Biden mocks Pete Buttigieg’s inexperience. Buttigieg, Biden, Bloomberg and Klobuchar seek to undermine Bernie Sanders by saying he can’t get elected (even though polls show him running just as well, or better, against Trump than his Democratic rivals).

Candidates spar over universal healthcare, minority rights and other issues — all worthy considerations. But instead of targeting Trump, with whom they vehemently disagree, they’re nitpicking each one another to death. They’re so concerned that maybe “a socialist can’t beat Trump” or “a woman can’t beat Trump” or “a gay man can’t beat Trump” or “a mayor can’t beat Trump” or “an old guy can’t beat Trump” that they’re trying to kill each other off with elephant guns that will be out of ammunition by the time November rolls around.

By that time, Trump will have all these sound bites showing Democrats blasting each other other, and he’ll use them against whoever wins the nomination.

My father, a political science professor, called this phenomenon, “Your own guy says so.” If Buttigieg says Sanders’ talk of universal healthcare is dangerous, Trump can use that. If Biden says Buttigieg lacks the experience to be president, he’ll use that, too. It’s all right there on videotape.

The complicit media

The media, of course, feed into all this, not because it’s in the public interest, but because bare-knuckle brawls make good theater (and ratings!). Forget all the hoopla about CNN or MSNBC carrying water for the Democrats. They’re not out to get Democrats elected. They’re out for ratings ... which is, in fact, the same reason Fox echoes Trumpian talking points. They don’t care about Trump. Not really. They care about their bottom line. Viewers tune in, advertisers buy spots, the network makes money.

Anyone who thinks any network’s foremost mission is to elect this or that candidate is fooling themselves. They’re in it for the Benjamins, plain and simple.

Which is why CNN and MSNBC are helping to destroy the Democrats’ chances of winning, whether they’re willing to admit it or not. Four more years of Trump is the best thing that could happen to them. It perpetuates outrage, which perpetuates viewers, which perpetuates ratings, which keeps the cash flowing.

All those town halls and debates aren’t any kind of public service. They’re aired for the same reason pay-per-view is showing the Wilder-Fury heavyweight rematch this weekend. For the same reason car crashes and fires lead the local evening news. Conflict sells. Brutality raises ratings. They don’t want to see Elizabeth Warren try to play peacemaker among her fellow Democrats, or hear Sanders say he doesn’t care about Hillary Clinton’s damn emails. They want to see Democrats going for the throat. They want to see an embittered Clinton lashing out at Sanders four years after the fact, and they want to see Sanders react.

They absolutely loved the Iowa caucus debacle, because viewers stayed tuned to find out the delayed results, and because it created still more conflict. Then they could pontificate and hand-wring as though they’re above it all. Yeah, right.

And they don’t want Trump out of office. They love the guy, because he’s the archvillain everyone (on the left, anyway) loves to hate. Who are the Avengers without a Thanos? Who’s Batman without the Joker? Trump knows they need him, and he goads them with it, and the Democrats respond with...

Business as usual. Distract one another from the real opponent by getting into a family food fight, while the other guy goes around selling bogus promises of filet mignon dinners at the steakhouse down the street — which is really just a front for a two-bit mob operation.

Democrats are fiddling around while what used to be America burns. The media bring it all right into our living rooms. And Trump’s just laughing all the way to a second term.