I love mapping stereotypes like this and this. So much so, in fact, that I decided to try my hand at it myself. Without further ado, here's Wisconsin's View of the Midwest:

I've always liked former Madison mayor Paul Soglin. I don't always agree with him politically, but I respect him for his pragmatism and his Midwestern "Git 'er Done" attitude. However, I do take issue with a recent post on his Waxing America website. It says:

Last Tuesday's successes by the Teabaggers in a number of Republican primaries give the Democratic Party an opportunity to regroup and salvage the November elections. The success in Delaware of Christine O'Donnell, who may give historians pause to reinterpret the Salem Witch Trials, increases the probability that the meandering Democrats can maintain control of Congress.

The key is how the Democrats maximize the potential of the Tea party movement. While it is inevitable that some Teabaggers cannot relate to the party of FDR, the Little Flower, and Will Rogers, it is important that the Democratic Party relate to them.

Very few Teabaggers are racist; their numbers are so small as to be inconsequential.

Some Teabaggers are strict libertarians, but they are a minority.

Quite a few Teabaggers want lower taxes, but most of them are victims of the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.

A lot of Teabaggers want less government, but when it comes to government stepping on our backs, it was brought to us by so -called conservatives who rammed home the so-called Patriot Act - more an intrusion into the privacy of every American than a weapon against terrorism.

Most Teabaggers are angry, and rightfully so. No more or less than the rest of us they are fed lies and deception about how healthcare reform stole from seniors' medicare. Their tax burden and national debt is as great as the rest of us -- created by Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, a failed economy created by exportation of jobs by businesses that were given Bush tax credits, and a housing crisis fed by a de-regulated financial market. It was the repeal of the Depression Era Glass-Steagall Act (1933) that led to this economic disaster.

Democrats need to go out there and listen to the Teabaggers; the Republicans are not.

The post refers to "teabaggers" eight times. Despite what people would have you think, that's not a friendly term and it's not what Tea Party activists call themselves. It's an insult and it shows a complete lack of respect. Disagree with someone all you want, but if you're going to ask for their vote, you should at least show them some respect.

You don't win friends with salad and you don't win elections by being patronizing jerks either.

We've frequently discussed what's wrong with the Minnesota sports fan, but I think it's worth digging into a little bit more. To outsiders, I suspect that the upper Midwest looks like a homogeneous land of interchangeable white people. Of course, they couldn't be more wrong. Minnesota and Wisconsin, although neighbors, are almost complete cultural opposites.

Why is that? I suspect it has something to do with immigration patterns. I wanted to take a look at where modern day Minnesotans came from compared to the cultural heritage of Wisconsinites. I put together a couple of charts for a visual comparison:

At first glance, they're not that different. But on closer examination, what jumps out at you is just how much less Scandinavian and more Polish Wisconsin is. In fact, while Poles make up just over 5% of Minnesota's population, they're nearly 10% of Wisconsin. And, Polish pockets like Milwaukee and Central Wisconsin can be over 30% Polish. Could it be that somewhere between 5 and 9% is the Polish "tipping point" - the point where the mass of Poles is enough to greatly influence the rest of the culture towards polka, kielbasa, hard drinking and uncommon loyalty to sports teams?

Selfishly, I'd like to think so, but in reality I think that's only part of the story. Just like outsiders assume Upper Midwesterners are all alike, we assume that Scandinavians are all alike. Of course, Swedes, Danes & Norwegians disagree:

As a matter of fact, jokes featuring "the Swede, the Dane and the Norwegian" are ubiquitous among children in the three countries: the Swede is always depicted as a rich and arrogant child of the Enlightenment, the Dane as a slightly decadent hedonist, and the Norwegian as an uneducated, often stupid country bumpkin. These jokes illustrate how mutual stereotypes not only contribute to the definition of the other, but also function recursively in the definition of the self. The following example is in many ways typical:

A Swede, a Dane and a Norwegian are shipwrecked on the proverbial desert island. A genie appears out of thin air, informing them that they can each have a wish granted. The Swede immediately says, "I want to go home to my large and comfortable bungalow with the Volvo, video and slick IKEA furniture." So he vanishes. The Dane then says, "I want to go back to my cozy little flat in Copenhagen, to sit in my soft sofa, feet on the table, next to my sexy girlfriend and with a sixpack of lagers." Off he flies. The Norwegian, after giving the problem a bit of thought, then tells the genie, "Cor, I suddenly feel so terribly lonely here, so I guess I wish for my two friends to come back."

Reading that was definitely an "A ha!" moment for me. Maybe it's not that Minnesota was settled by more Scandinavians and fewer Poles, maybe it's more specific than that. Sure enough, a quick look does reveal that Minnesota is the most Swedish of all the States while the Dakotas and Wisconsin are more Norwegian and Wisconsin, in particular, has more Danes (as if you couldn't guess that).

It all makes sense, doesn't it? Minnesota was settled by people who had, for generations, looked down their Nordic noses at their "dumb" or hard-partying neighbors. These people may have crossed the Atlantic, but they didn't really change their ways. This is exactly the kind of attitude Minnesota has towards Wisconsin. One of the local free papers even has a running item about "weird Wisconsin" that usually has something to do with drunks and/or cows.

Much like the Poles in Wisconsin, Minnesota's Swedes had the critical mass to make the State their own, for better or worse.

I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about how America is a "nation of entitlements". I think the article has some good points, but I do object to the general attitude towards unemployment benefits. There seems to be this widespread belief that people on unemployment are living high on the hog and enjoying fun, carefree day after day.

While there's certainly a large part of this country that doesn't actually pay taxes, I think there's also a large part of this country that has never had to deal with any serious financial setbacks. If they had, they'd know what people on unemployment feel like day after day.

People on unemployment don't really want extensions beyond 99 weeks of benefits. People on unemployment want a good job. The maximum you can get in unemployment benefits varies by state, but it's generally between $350 - $500/week. And remember, that's the maximum, so if you were making, for example, $60,000 your income might be knocked down to just over $18,000. If you've built a $60,000 lifestyle and obligations, you're not going to be living it up, you're going to be making serious sacrifices.

And that's just the money. When you're unemployed you feel depressed and worthless. Every job you never hear from is another way you feel like there's something seriously wrong with you. Then, you get these jackasses who think you should just get a job at McDonalds - as if McDonalds is in the habit of hiring 30-something marketing managers rather than pimply teenagers. As if McDonalds solves your problems or puts you in a better financial situation.

Unemployment sucks. What sucks even more is when people think that the government should teach you a lesson about responsibility rather than help you survive. Mind you, this is the same government that gave billions to banks and car companies to bail them out from their own poor decisions. But God forbid we give Joe Six Pack another few thousand dollars so he doesn't end up on the street.

The comments on the WSJ article are typically mean spirited:

"I don't like taking government money," says Mr. Hester, but "what else is there?"

The nagging question, is how much faster would Mr Hester (et al) have found an alternative source of income if there was NO government cash available?

Entitlement outlays simply must be cut until the programs are viable (assuming we are forever stuck w/SS/Medicare/Medicaid).

Can you imagine if there was no unemployment insurance at all? Imagine how powerless employees would be. If you were basically SOL if you got laid off what would you do to make sure that didn't happen? And if it did happen, what would you do?

I also think a lot of people don't understand that unemployment insurance is a true safety net. People want to be on it for as little as possible. However, when times are really tough like right now, as little as possible is going to be longer:

"A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted late last month found 61% of voters were 'enthusiastic' or 'comfortable' with congressional candidates who support cutting federal spending in general. But 56% expressed the same enthusiasm for candidates who voted to extend unemployment benefits."

The 17% of voters who answered yes to both questions are exactly why I have no faith whatsoever that we will avoid the entitlement apocalypse. The numbers are even worse for SS & Medicare. Most people who say they want spending cuts are lying. Most candidates that say they will cut spending are lying.

People don't support unemployment benefit extensions because they're inconsistent. They support them because they understand that people need help right now.

I did read one really good comment that I think provides a solution I could support:

We need BALANCE in our endeavors to provide assistance where there is legitimate need, while simultaneously inspiring individual responsibility & independence. In fairness to all, we need education regarding personal financial planning, circumstances enabling independence (such as reduced taxes), and suitable products, while simultaneously collecting ample taxes for the policies & programs necessary for federal service, ensuring that we charitably care for the vulnerable whose needs are unquestionable. We should assess and close all loopholes that enable cunning individuals to demonstrate deceptive illusions of need. Deception is clearly outside the intent of the law.

Regarding entitlements discussed in this article, we need immediate attention to:

1) THE EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BEYOND 26 WEEKS: When INDIDIVUAL unemployment benefits expired at 26 weeks, Congress owed it to the American people to look at HOUSEHOLD income rather than individual job loss when deciding whether unemployed persons were eligible for extensions. When Congress extended individual benefits beyond 26 weeks to households having two heads and one enjoys continued employment capable of sustaining reasonable room and board, thereby enabling the second to stay at home, care for the home, and in some cases the children (thus reducing childcare and other costs associated with employment), our Congress acted irresponsibly. Extension without case assessment was irresponsible with respect to our federal deficit, and with respect to duty. It is an example of wasteful spending. Extensions at expiration should have incorporated a prudent look at each case relative to household need before authorizing further taxpayer expenditures on unemployment entitlements.

Can we elect this person? I think they've got the right mix of empathy and practicality - qualities that seem to be lacking in both the electorate and the government right now.

I have no idea if this beer is any good, but that name. I definitely would have purchased it if they had actually spelled "sheepshead" correctly. :)

With fall just about here, I feel like in addition to football season, it's beer season. While Sheephead Ale is tempting, I'd also recommend:

• Lakefront Brewery's Pumpkin Lager for its smooth, creamy, but not cloying, flavor
• Capital Brewery's Supper Club for a good, solid everyday beer
• New Glarus Fat Squirrel for a hearty, but reasonable, nut brown ale
• Surly Bender for a hearty, but unreasonable nut brown beer
• Rush River IPA for a beer that's hoppy, but not just for the sake of being hoppy
• Sand Creek Cranberry Special Ale for a celebration of Wisconsin's native fruit
• Sprecher's Abbey Triple for an American take on the world's greatest beer (damn those monks!)
• Ace Pear Cider for a cider that's not sickeningly sweet
• Point Oktoberfest, for a nice, solid, easy-drinking beer

I limited this to pretty much Midwestern beers, so I'd love some good nationwide fall beer suggestions.

I couldn't sleep this morning and so I was up early watching some of the 9/11 coverage. I watched MSNBC's replay of the original NBC coverage and was again struck by how awful it was (lots of reports of talking to "high ranking U.S. officials" and not nearly enough time talking to actual eyewitnesses). In any case though, it was interesting to see 9/11 presented again as simply something that happened. Before the replay began, on the other hand, I had to hear at least a couple of TV talking heads mention how religious tolerance, i.e. the current controversies over the Park51 mosque and the Florida Koran burning, was the important thing to take away from 9/11.

Huh? Of all of the potential reasons the United States was attacked on 9/11, religious tolerance or lack thereof was not on the list. If you want to use 9/11 to reaffirm our American values of free speech and freedom of religion, go for it. But if you think that those values are something we should learn from 9/11 then I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I hesitate to write this, because I love The Onion. It started at my alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I've even been in The Onion. I still fondly remember how much my Dad giggled at their fake WWI coverage. But, this article in a few weeks ago really bothered me, but I couldn't articulate why. I think it's because it crosses the line from satire to straight up opinion:

Gentries, 48, said he had absolutely no interest in exposing himself to further knowledge of Islamic civilization or putting his sweeping opinions into a broader context of any kind, and confirmed he was "perfectly happy" to make a handful of emotionally charged words the basis of his mistrust toward all members of the world's second-largest religion.

"I learned all that really matters about the Muslim faith on 9/11," Gentries said in reference to the terrorist attacks on the United States undertaken by 19 of Islam's approximately 1.6 billion practitioners. "What more do I need to know to stigmatize Muslims everywhere as inherently violent radicals?"

"And now they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero," continued Gentries, eliminating any distinction between the 9/11 hijackers and Muslims in general. "No, I won't examine the accuracy of that statement, but yes, I will allow myself to be outraged by it and use it as evidence of these people's universal callousness toward Americans who lost loved ones when the Twin Towers fell."

"Even though I am not one of those people," he added.

When told that the proposed "Ground Zero mosque" is actually a community center two blocks north of the site that would include, in addition to a public prayer space, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant, and athletic facilities, Gentries shook his head and said, "I know all I'm going to let myself know."

Not only is that not at all funny, it's not really satire, is it? I'd expect more from The Onion than to parrot the opinions of mainstream news. I expect an original take on the issue.

I went back to The Onion's acclaimed post 9/11 issue and again admired how they were able to cover 9/11 with an almost perfect blend of humor, anger & even seriousness.

The article about the woman who didn't know what else to do other than bake an American flag-cake really did capture that feeling of helplessness so many of us felt:

My friends Cassie and Patrick [Overstreet] invited me over to have dinner and just talk about, you know, everything," said Pearson, a Topeka legal secretary who has never visited and knows no one in either New York or Washington, D.C. "I thought I'd make something special or do something out of respect for all of the people who died. All those innocent people. All those rescue workers who lost their lives."

Mixing the cake and placing it in the oven shortly after 3 p.m., Pearson sat at the kitchen table and stared at the oven door until the timer rang 50 minutes later.

As the cake cooled, Pearson gathered materials to decorate it. She searched the spice cupboard for a half-used tube of blue food coloring, but could not find it. After frantically pulling all the cans and jars from the cupboard, she finally found the tube in the very back. Emitting a deep sigh of relief, she spread the coloring over the cake's upper-left-hand corner to create the flag's blue field.

"I baked a cake," said Pearson, shrugging her shoulders and forcing a smile as she unveiled the dessert in the Overstreet household later that evening. "I made it into a flag."

Pearson and the Overstreets stared at the cake in silence for nearly a minute, until Cassie hugged Pearson.

"It's beautiful," Cassie said. "The cake is beautiful."

There's truth in that ridiculousness. And really, I'm not just annoyed by the political opinions in the more recent Onion piece. They used to, I think, do a good bipartisan job of pointing out the ridiculous. From another post 9/11 article:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the war against terrorism will be different from any previous model of modern warfare.

"We were lucky enough at Pearl Harbor to be the victim of a craven sneak attack from an aggressor with the decency to attack military targets, use their own damn planes, and clearly mark those planes with their national insignia so that we knew who they were," Rumsfeld said. "Since the 21st-century breed of coward is not affording us any such luxury, we are forced to fritter away time searching hither and yon for him in the manner of a global easter-egg hunt."

"America is up to that challenge," Rumsfeld added.

On Monday, the House of Representatives voted 428-2 to form an intelligence-gathering task force dedicated to "rooting out every scrap of information that can possibly be gleaned" concerning the attackers.

"When this task force's investigation is complete, America will know this guy's mother's favorite flavor of ice cream," U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) said. "We will also know who he is."

Gramm said that the U.S. has already learned a great deal about the details of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and that a rough psychological profile of its mastermind has been constructed.

"For example, we know that the mastermind has the approximate personality of a terrorist," Gramm said. "Also, he is senseless. New data is emerging all the time."

Standing in opposition to Bush and Congress is a small but growing anti-war movement. During the president's speech Tuesday, two dozen demonstrators gathered outside the White House, chanting and waving placards bearing such slogans as "U.S. Out Of Somewhere" and "No Blood For Whatever These Murderous Animals Hope To Acquire."

It's funny because it's true. Still true. Hmmm, okay, maybe it's really not that funny anymore. Whatever it is, at least it's not lazy, which is what The Onion is now. I mean, how much original thought does it take to make fun of people you think are ignorant for being ignorant? Isn't that the lowest form of comedy, just ahead of "Man Fall Down". And really, at least "Man Fall Down" is hilarious. If you're going to be stupid & lazy, at least make me laugh.

Our Pro Football Pick 'Em pool closes on Thursday. Don't miss out! Access the league here. Our info is:

Group ID#: 37474
Password: rodgers12

In the reaction to the new Big Ten divisions my sister said:

Football is more than winning a conference championship. If it wasn't, the Wisconsin program would have died off long ago.

I love that. I know it's hard to believe, but college football is not just about conference championships, the BCS and money. Really! College football is about fun and tradition and the game day experience. It's the most obvious way that, as an alum, you reconnect with your university each fall.

The reason I'm so upset by the Big Ten divisional alignment is that it was a slap in the face to Wisconsin's rivalries and traditions. It starkly highlights what really matters to the powers that be. And, what really matters to them is far removed from what I think Wisconsin football is about.

Wisconsin football isn't really about winning. That may sound absurd and self defeating, but stay with me here for a moment. Wisconsin football, like the Wisconsin Idea, is a way to connect the people of the State to the university. We use the Wisconsin football experience to express our culture to the world.

So sure, part of that culture involves the occasional three-story beer bong, but it's not just about being drunk (no really!). Wisconsin fans, unlike, it seems, the Big Ten, aren't too serious about college football. In the midst of their story about the 1993 crush vs. Michigan, Sports Illustrated related the following story which perfectly describes what Wisconsin football is about:

Add to that the Wisconsin school's long-established reputation for partying and irreverence. Consider that in 1979 the Badger band and fans stormed the field at an away game against Michigan State, a 55-2 loss; tore down the goalpost; and paraded around while chanting, "We scored first!"

And even as the teams got better, that spirit of irreverence has remained. Witness the "Matt Unertl Game"

For the uninitiated, when Ron Dayne played for the Badgers the PA would exaggerate his name: "Ron Daaaaaaaayne". The crowd got in the habit of chanting it back. Post-Dayne, the crowd somehow decided to do the same when senior plodder Matt Unertl got a few carries. Why? Because it was hilarious and that's how we roll.

And we have the band and, unlike some schools (I'm looking at you Michigan) we have a wide variety of signature songs beyond "Jump Around". We've got beer gardens that play only the cheesiest of songs. Yep - you know it's football season when you're packed in with hundreds of your new best friends all singing "YOU LIVE FOR THE FIGHT WHEN THAT'S ALL THAT YOU GOT!!!" at the top of your lungs.

That's what Wisconsin football is. An early season game in a typical 9-3 season is more fun than your Rose Bowl. Our Rose Bowl is way more fun than your BCS National Championship. And, if we ever won a national title, well, I guess our friends in Minnesota, Iowa and northern Illinois (you know, those border states that aren't in our geographically determined division) would have to hold down the fort for a few days while we all recovered.

In truth, other than destroying a rivalry with Iowa that's been played 73 out of the last 75 years, the Big Ten divisional alignment doesn't yet kill the spirit of Wisconsin football, it just makes it very clear that the Big Ten doesn't care what Wisconsin is about - to them, we are just another interchangeable team not named The Ohio State University or Michigan.

Personally, I think Wisconsin football is what's right in college sports and the Big Ten is now just another part of what's wrong.

So, did you hear that the Big Ten established two football divisions? We have some opinions about that.

Basically, I hate it. HATE. I hate that my Wisconsin Badgers were placed in a division without our two closest rivals and most popular road trips. Sure, we get a crack at Ohio State and Penn State every year, but we won't play Iowa or Nebraska annually either. In fact, after this year, Badger fans won't see the Hawkeyes again until 2013 (or never if the 2012 doomsday predictions come true).

The Big Ten claimed that geography was the number one factor in creating the divisions. I call shenanigans on this statement. The number one factor in creating these divisions was to give Ohio State and Michigan the opportunity to play each other in the conference championship. That's it.

Because I'm a huge nerd, I created this spreadsheet that shows the distances between Big Ten schools. Some interesting geographical facts:

• Wisconsin is not in a division with either of the two teams located within 200 miles of Madison.
• Nor is Wisconsin guaranteed a yearly game with either of these two teams
• The "Wolverine" division teams are an average of 426 miles away from their opponents, while the "Buckeye" division is 351. If Wisconsin and Illinois were logically substituted for Michigan & Michigan State the divisions would be a far more manageable 303 and 330.
• For Wisconsin, the change is more dramatic. In the current set up, Wisconsin is, on average, 426 miles from its division opponents. That's a flight. In an East/West setup, it's only 262 miles away - that's a four-hour car ride.
• And it's not just about Wisconsin. In that east/west setup, the only teams on average more than 400 miles away from their division opponents are, logically, the two teams on the east/west extremes: Nebraska & Penn State. In the actual setup, 6 teams have to deal with distances at least that far.

To me, the Big Ten thought a lot about Ohio State and Michigan and a lot of current competitive football balance. They didn't think about geography. They didn't think about the fans. And I don't think they thought at all about Wisconsin.

With Bristol Palin joining such "celebrities" as the Hoff, Jennifer Grey, The Situation and Kurt Warner on the upcoming season of Dancing With The Stars, it occurs to me that Palin's performance could be an easy way to predict the November elections.

While I'm sure some people who watch DWTS base their votes on actual dancing talent, I suspect many more vote on simply which celebrities they like the most. Therefore, it's pretty easy to assume that the type of hardcore liberals who actually vote in mid-term elections won't be calling her number. Likewise, the Tea Party types who love Sarah Palin will probably vote for Bristol even if she has two left feet.

"Dancing With The Stars" is one of the biggest mainstream hits on television. I suspect its audience over indexes on voting, particularly in non-Presidential years. If Bristol stays longer than her dancing warrants or gets voted off more quickly than she should, I think we can attribute that to political reasons that will likely carry over to the real voting booth. This probably sounds a little ridiculous, but I do feel like the DWTS audience is more representative of what Americans think than the writers of the New York Times or Glenn Beck.

The only wrench in there is that it's possible that Bristol's personality will override the politics and people may vote for or against based on that. However, based on the 5 minutes she was on TV last night, it doesn't appear that she has a personality (or she was completely scared to death), so I think we're safe.

Bristol doesn't need to win - clearly this is The Hoff's show to lose - but I don't think it's crazy to think that a strong performance by her might mean more seats in the House and Senate for the GOP.

One of the biggest controversies in Wisconsin right now is the proposed high speed rail from Milwaukee to Madison. It's just a train, but people are very emotional about it and they project all kinds of nasty characteristics on people who disagree with them. For example, train supporters are clearly dirty hippies who hate America. Opponents of the train, on the other hand, are fat, racist SUV drivers who pollute the countryside with their McDonalds' wrappers. I'm really not exaggerating. Not even a little bit.

It occurred to me the other day, though, that the debate shouldn't be about the train. That's taking the debate too far down the line. Rather than starting with a solution, we should start with the problem. In this case, the problem is that our transportation system was designed for cars and that may not be sustainable in the future. The question, therefore, isn't "should we build the train?", it's "what should we do?"

See how that instantly opens up more possibilities? I read one article on the topic that talked about how unlikely it was that you could completely change America's car culture and that, instead of high speed rail, we should invest in things like electric cars. So, then maybe, future transportation projects could focus on building convenient charging stations on the interstate. I dunno. It's just a thought.

What I like about this is that you end the perception that disagreeing with one solution somehow means you're denying that there's a problem. I think it lets you discuss the problem without the burden of the emotional investment in the solution you like best.

One of the most irritating things about politics in America right now is that we're so partisan that we're convinced that the other side is committed to the downfall of our nation. There's no concept that each party genuinely wants what's best for America and that they just have different ways of getting there. I think if you start with the problem you are at least more likely to acknowledge that fact.

I think you can extend this idea into other policy areas. It would have been great, for example, if the health care debate didn't focus on the features and flaws of Obamacare, but rather than on what's wrong with health care in America and how we could fix it.

Sometimes digging deeper leads to some uncomfortable questions. I think if you go beyond the surface of the Ground Zero mosque debate, the problem is really something like "How can a country with values of religious & cultural tolerance coexist with religious fundamentalism?" That certainly covers more than the mosque (for example - I think the same question ultimately drives debate on things like abortion & gay marriage).

There are no easy answers and that's what I love about it. "You're racist!" or "You hate America!" isn't an answer, thank God.

While I may not get to watch every Packers game, I do have TVG, so I get to watch Zenyatta, among others. As a horse racing fan, August is one of the best times of the year. The Saratoga and Del Mar meets are in full swing, two-year olds are racing and you never know when you'll catch a future star.

Yesterday, I glanced up at the TV long enough to watch Uncle Mo, who looks to be a worthy challenger to the current hyped two-year olds Kantharos and Boys At Toscanova.

Wow. Although he's obviously quick, Uncle Mo may have some distance ability as his broodmare sire is the stamina influence Arch.

When you catch a horse at the beginning of his career, they're always a little special to you. It's that way with anything - it's always sweeter if you were in from the start. I found these two videos of Mumford & Sons - one from March 2009 and one from this summer. Don't you think the people that saw them on a patio in Austin love them just a little bit more seeing how far they've come?

Sometimes I make fun of those people that are always chasing the next cool band or the next trend or whatever, but seeing these videos now makes me think that maybe they're on to something.

I assume the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

To celebrate the season I created a pro football pick 'em league on Yahoo if anyone would like to join. You can access the league here. Our info is:

Group ID#: 37474
Password: rodgers12

As I was driving the other day, I heard a song that really reminded me of Brett Favre. I wondered if I could come up with a 20-song playlist that would reflect the Brett Favre Experience. Of course I could! You can see it below (interspersed with some football videos for context).

The Pre-Packer Years

As you can see from the picture on the right, Favre was pretty much a hayseed, hence my first track, "Cotton Eyed Joe" by rednex. For his short time with the Falcons, I picked "Zero" by Yeah Yeah Yeahs. I think these lyrics are perfect:

Your zero
What's your name?
No one's going to ask you
Better find out where they want you to go

Try and hit the spot
Get to know it in the dark
Get to know it whether you're
Crying, crying, crying, oh, oh
Can you climb, climb, climb higher?

Even Packer fans had no idea who this quarterback we traded for was.

The Early Packers Years

Of course, soon we'd never forget Favre. Now, it's easy to remember the bitter end, but I thought "Your Song" (I chose the Ewan McGregor version) was a nice way to remember the start:

And you can tell everybody this is your song
It may be quite simple but now that it's done
I hope you don't mind
I hope you don't mind that I put down in words
How wonderful life is while you're in the world

It's hard to believe it, but that's how we felt about the guy. I chose Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'" specifically thinking of the 1995 NFC Championship Game loss the Cowboys. We lost that game, but we all just knew the magical was going to happen - hence the obvious choice of Queen's "We Are The Champions" to represent the Super Bowl.

The Middle Years

While Packers loved him, I think the rest of the country didn't get Favre shoved down their throat until after the Super Bowl. Then we heard all about what a "big kid just having fun out there" he was. Can you tell I'm rolling my eyes? Anyway, to represent this period of the Favre Experience, I've got "Build Me Up Buttercup" by The Foundations. It's perfect not only because the video from There's Something About Mary features Favre and his "awesome" dancing, but also because lyrically, Favre really did build us up and then let us down in a quest for a second Super Bowl title, didn't he?

After that, I've got Santigold's "Unstoppable" in reference to his consecutive games streak, followed by John Denver's "Thank God I'm A Country Boy" and Lazlo Bane's "Superman", which I think of as Favre's often fatal desire to win the game all on his own.

The End of the Packers Era

The chorus of the Old 97's "Indefinitely" neatly sums up what Favre put the Packers through every season:

I don't mean no.
I don't mean maybe.
I'm indefinitely.
I'm indefinitely.

Even though he was starting to be a pain in the ass, we loved him. It was hard to say goodbye. Jeff Buckley's "Last Goodbye" summed up those conflicting feelings well:

This is our last goodbye
I hate to feel the love between us die
But it's over
Just hear this and then I'll go
You gave me more to live for
More than you'll ever know

But, like The Eagles' sang, "There's A New Kid In Town" and while Packers fans loved Favre, we also looked forward to what Aaron Rodgers could do.

The Break Up

Rilo Kiley's "A Man/Me/Then Jim" was actually the inspiration for this post because of these lyrics:

She said, "You can sleep upon my doorstep
You can promise me indifference, Jim (editor's note: or Brett :)
But my mind's made up
And I'll never let you in again"

For the slow fade of love
It might hit you from below
It's your gradual descent into a life you never meant
It's the slow fade of love

I haven't heard a better way to describe my feelings about Favre in the summer of 2008 than as the "slow fade of love". That's exactly right.

As for Favre, like The Baby's sang, he was "Back On My Feet Again" in New York City.

The Betrayal

When Favre signed with the Vikings, that was it for Packer fans. We were over. Favre didn't get it. But I think our feelings were perfectly captured in Ben Folds Five's "Smoke":

You keep on saying the past is not dead
Stop and smell the smoke
You keep saying the past is not even past
You keep saying ...
We are smoke ... smoke ... smoke

I think of this song and then think about all of the Packer fans burning their Favre jerseys on giant bonfires. Smoke indeed.

The Heavy's "How Do You Like Me Now?" refers to both Packer fans who hate Favre and Vikings fans who've embraced him. Oh how the world turns.

But, the more things change, the more they stay the same as Britney Spears' "Ooops I Did It Again" neatly shows. Yep, we all say that interception in the NFC Championship Game coming. :)

The Future?

Favre claims this is his last year, but we'll see about that. It may be, but I'm sure he'll string the Vikings along a little bit, which is why Henry Rollins' "Liar" seems appropriate.

The final two songs on the Brett Favre Experience playlist reflect how I feel about the future relationship between Favre and the Packers will be like. First, I added Matthew Sweet's "You Don't Love Me". I think the fact that he's not immediately re-embraced by Packer fans will come as a shock to Favre:

What a beautiful moment, the truth comes out at last.
Once your heart would own me forever, then this passed.
And what a beautiful moment, as my head comes apart.
Drunk, and in a manner of saying, wasted.

'Cause you don't love me, you don't love me.
You can't see how I matter in this world,
even though I love you, you can't believe that.
If you find something you think might make you happy
then I guess it's OK, I think it's OK
if you go away.

Blown right out of my senses, I did not know know what to do.
Lost, and badly wanting someone to see me through.
That's why I needed you.

Finally, I ended with what may be Favre's future redemption song, The Avett Brother's "Shame":

Okay so I was wrong about
My reasons for us fallin' out
Of love I want to fall back in

My life is different now I swear
I know now what it means to care
About somebody other than myself

I know the things I said to you
They were untender and untrue
I'd like to see those things undo

So if you could find it in your heart
To give a man a second start
I promise things won't end the same

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission brought out a bunch of hand wringing about how this was the end of fair elections and from now on seats would be bought by the corporate monoliths.

One of the major criticisms of the decision was that it bestowed personhood on corporations. The counter argument is that corporations are already people - they're a group of people just like a newspaper or a union or a non-profit organization entitled to the same right to speech.

To me, the flap over Target's $150,000 donation to MN Forward shows not only that this latter view of corporations is correct, but also vividly demonstrates the pitfalls of corporate political contributions and why the Citizens United decision really isn't the death of democracy after all.

I think Target's executives decided to make the donation with a combination of thoughtlessness and arrogance. I think they made a personal decision that Emmer's social politics were either a) in line with their own and/or b) were dwarfed by MN Forward's general pro-business agenda. In doing so, they neglected to consider that many of the corporation's shareholders, employees and customers feel exactly the opposite - in fact, a corporation is actually made up on a large number of individuals with different opinions. Gasp. While shareholders empower executives to make business decisions, making political contributions on their behalf is taking that power too far. I expect that many corporations are going to have to write specific guidelines for corporate political contributions. It's not going to be as simple as writing a check to a charity.

So as a marketer, here are some of my suggestions for corporations considering political contributions:

• Don't do it.
• No really, don't do it. How much more than $150,000 has Target spent to deal with its donation? Couldn't those hours have been put to more productive use, especially in the middle of Back to School season?
• Okay, if you're pretty much a "one issue" company, then go ahead and make political donations. But, I'm defining "one issue" pretty narrowly. One issue isn't "retail" or "food". One issue is something like the example I've gone back to with Churchill Downs. CHDN can probably get away with making political donations to pro-gambling PACs and candidates. But only probably. What if that same pro-gambling candidate opposes anti-horse slaughter legislation? Wouldn't that upset lots of their shareholders and employees and customers? See how messy this gets? Okay, so again, maybe the answer is simply - don't do it.
• So, to sum it up, don't do it

Just because we can speak freely and donate freely doesn't always mean we should. That holds for individuals and certainly corporations too. I suspect that many corporations will still make political contributions and plenty of marketing and public relations people will spend much of their time cleaning up the ensuing mess.

A few weeks ago my nephew posted something on Facebook about how he was "liking" Ticketmaster there for the sole purpose of continually trashing them on their fan page. I giggled and appreciated his consistent desire to fight the power.

Today, however, I joined him in the fight. I went to purchase a $25 concert ticket and got hit with the following fees:

• $7.30 convenience charge
• additional taxes of $.57
• $4.58 order processing fee

Add it up and that's $12.47. And that's not counting a $2.50 fee I could pay for the privilege of printing my tickets myself or a new $3.00 fee for will call. (As an aside, why will Ticketmaster mail tickets to me for free? Is there some law that doesn't allow them to tack on a $3.98 envelope fee and a $2.54 postage and handling charge? I can't believe they'd miss the boat that much)

So, needless to say, I'll go the box office and buy tickets. It might take a half hour and yeah, I value my time at more than $25/hour, but you know what I value even more? Making sure Ticketmaster doesn't get another dime out of my pocket.

So anyway, the point of this rant is that, clearly, some companies just shouldn't get involved in two-way social media. Ticketmaster has a Facebook fan page, but clearly, it's just another outlet for customer rage.

I understand that as long as enough people buy tickets, Ticketmaster doesn't really care about that rage. But what I don't understand is why they're bothering with social media in the first place. Bands and venues will promote their shows, so Ticketmaster has no need to be out there providing a forum for people to discuss how much they hate them. I mean, I appreciate the opportunity, but I don't understand it. They're wasting resources on social media that could be put to better use dreaming up more fees. What are they thinking?!?

As a serious question though, how can they get away with this? The government cracked down on bank fees, why the hell isn't Ticketmaster next in line?

It's been a golden summer for internet celebrities. We have the double rainbow guy, who spawned what is clearly one of the best songs of the year.

In July we met Antoine Dodson, who saved his sister from a would be rapist and inspired another great song.

Then, just this week Steve Slater burst onto the scene and slid down the emergency chute (two beers in hand) and into our hearts.

Remember when summer used to be about big, expensive action movies and the stars were people like Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Will Smith? I think Internet celebrities have completely taken over for these guys. All that's missing is the popcorn!

I was reading an article speculating that Obama might replace Vice President Biden with Hillary Clinton. The thought was that Obama could use Biden as a scapegoat and prevent Hillary from mounting a campaign against him in 2012.

But here's my question: why do we assume that Obama will even run in 2012? Would you want to be President now? I mean, when times are good, I'm sure it's tough, but fun. But in a long recession, a quagmire in Asia and a looming fiscal crisis, it's gotta suck.

So, Obama could put himself through another nasty campaign, this time grounded in dismal reality rather than lofty rhetoric, and if he "wins" he'll get to make a bunch of unpopular choices. Awesome.

On the other hand, he could quit, wrap things up in D.C. and ride the storm out from wherever he wants in comfort & style.

I wouldn't blame him if he chose the latter option. I think our leaders are in for a tough ride and if that's not your thing, then why not get off of the bus while you still can?

He could save face with some vague talk about "health reasons" and keep whatever legacy he has intact. Maybe he can even serve the country in some other capacity. But, he doesn't have to be the fall guy for everything.

My friend Steve is a thirtysomething father of two. He's also a huge music fan who was lucky enough to go to Lollapalooza in Chicago this past weekend. Inevitably, his friends gave him a hard time about being one of the "old guys" at the festival.

I think we have this idea that concerts and new music are just for the young. I don't think that's true. I think, rather, that the world is divided into people that actively seek out new music and those that don't. Age doesn't have that much to do with it. In my own family, my 20-year old nephew has no idea what music is new or cool, while his 50-something uncle will make you awesome CDs full of the latest and greatest songs (thanks again for introducing me to Okkervil River's "Lost Coastlines").

There's this perception that you stay in the pop culture bubble you came of age in. So Baby Boomers like the music of the 60s and 70s, while Generation X's music love should stop at grunge.

It's because of this that movie soundtracks are full of "classic" 60s songs, the Green Bay Packers play an old Todd Rundgren song when they score and American Idol forces its young contestants to sing songs that are nearly 50 years old. Producers are afraid of alienating their large older audience with scary "new" music.

To me, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course older generations aren't going to like new music if they never hear any of it. That's why I appreciate the Chicago Blackhawks for making The Fratellis' "Chelsea Dagger" their victory song. And yes, believe it or not, even Hawks fans in their 50s and 60s enjoyed it. Imagine that!

I've written before about the cultural death grip of the Baby Boomers, but I don't know that I had it right. I don't think the Boomers actually think that music peaked with them. I think, rather, that due to their demographic power, producers and marketers are just afraid to expose them (and by extension the rest of us) to anything too new or out there. It's easier to just have another "Stones night", you know?

In the meantime, there's a whole world of sounds out there to discover. And it's not just the realm of hipsters. Music is for everyone. We just have to be unafraid to take it, no matter our age.