The Dave Matthews Band is in trouble for dumping shit on the public. Sometimes the jokes just tell themselves, huh?

Jeez, first Ozzy shows up at the White House, and now this :

No more Mr. Nice Guy: Alice Cooper, a shock rocker back in the old days and now a fan of President Bush, says rock stars who’ve jumped on the John Kerry bandwagon — Sheryl Crow, Dave Matthews, James Taylor and Bruce Springsteen among them — are treasonous morons.

“To me, that’s treason. I call it treason against rock-and-roll, because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics,” the 56-year-old told the Canadian Press news service as he embarked last week on a 15-city Canadian tour.

Never one to avoid self-examination, Alice (aka Vincent Damon Furnier) added: “If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.” (We think he meant watching C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” or maybe he meant perusing the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, but either way you get the idea.)

I could have sworn I saw Alice Cooper in some of those one of those “Choose or Lose” ads back in high school, but after finding this Rolling Stone interview from 1973, it’s clear that I’m thinking of someone else.

You were saying the other day that you think rock music is political, because kids like it and their parents don’t. That’s an argument that I hear a lot which I really don’t think holds up.

Well, I think to a point it must be political music. I think anything that separates a kid and his parents is somewhat political. Don’t you think that?

No.

I, for some reason, do. I think that a kid at the age that buys our records is at a rebellious stage. He doesn’t like the government, doesn’t like this, doesn’t like that, doesn’t like anything his parents like.

But if his parents like, say, Rembrandt, then he’s not going to like Rembrandt. That doesn’t give his opinion any artistic significance.

No.

And his political views similarly don’t have any political significance.

Well, you’re right on that point. But when I think of politics I’m not just thinking of McGovern-Nixon type politics. I’m thinking of the whole system.

You had an interview in which you said you couldn’t care less about Vietnam.

I really don’t. I think it’s boring. I’m not there, and I don’t have any friends who are there. It sounds cold and heartless, doesn’t it? If I were there or if I were involved I would care. But as it is, I couldn’t take time to care about it.

‘There’ may come here

Yeah. If it comes here then I’ll be involved. I believe a person is in Vietnam because he wants to be. You don’t have to be in Vietnam, no matter what. You never have to be in any situation. You always choose it. If you believe in any sort of reincarnation - I really do - then you chose a long time ago where you were going to end up.

Looking back, you can see why he supports Bush :

“If I were there or if I were involved I would care. But as it is, I couldn’t take time to care about it.”

Welcome to my nightmare….

…let’s pretend that every allegation by the Disgruntled Veterans for Bush is true. So John Kerry was a wimp who ran at the first sign of danger and every action he’s ever taken was for use in a future political campaign. He’s a charlatan and a phony who can’t be trusted in a crisis. And he’ll stab his friends in the back at the first opportunity.

Sure, that sounds pretty harsh, but the silver lining in that cloud is this : He’s such a brilliant liar that he convinced everyone on his boat that they were under attack, every Navy official that he served with valor, every medic that he was wounded when he wasn’t, and was able to erase the memories of every one of his critics for 35 years. How can anyone doubt his ability to bring our allies into Iraq when he’s been using his Jedi mind trick so effectively?

You may not agree with his ideas, but you’d gotta admit someone with this much control over the opinions and memories of so many people would be pretty damn effective. If this John Kerry got elected, we’d have universal health care, a higher minimum wage, intelligence reform, and peace in the Middle East within a week of his inauguration. Of course, the downside with that is that he’d be an unstoppable despot.

In the end though, I’d still rather have the evil, mirror-universe Kerry than the retarded cowboy Bush.

Here’s a letter I wrote to the editors of Salon the other day in response to their excellent (but flawed) article about the possibility of violent protests during the Republican Convention. Since I know most of you probably don’t click on the links, lemme point out a few of the choice bits from the article so my letter will make a little more sense :

A similarly minuscule margin could determine this year’s election, and the possibility of history repeating itself leaves Gitlin aghast. “I think the Republicans will probably do what they did in 1968 and make television commercials of people rioting in the street and then promote their guy as the superintendent of order,” he says. “I sure wouldn’t want to be explaining to my kid how it turned out that Bush won election by three electoral votes because of some last-minute surge of opinion in West Virginia where that commercial played three times an hour.” Gitlin and Passacantando’s anxiety led them to coauthor an article in the Nation warning that the RNC 2004 could be Chicago ‘68 all over again unless progressives exercised restraint during the convention protests.
. . .
For protesters desperate to unleash four years of frustration, though, such warnings are easily dismissed. “Just talking for my own perspective, it would be a stretch to base the expression of one’s dissent on the question of whether or not it would energize the right wing,” says Jason Flores-Williams, an anti-RNC activist and political writer who recently authored High Times’ guide to the convention protests. “First off, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do for yourself. I’m less concerned with how things are going to affect the vote, and more concerned with confronting the systemic problems in this country head on.” Just as a previous generation talked of turning New York into Saigon, Flores-Williams says that the goal is “to make New York reflective of the anger that’s inside of us.”

This kind of thinking exasperates Gitlin. “The meaning of events is sum of all the consequences,” he says. “There’s a deep divide between those people who are capable of thinking through consequences and those people who are either incapable or resistant to thinking through consequences.”

Now, I’ve only copied the parts of the article that are relevant to my letter, so I encourage you to read the whole thing. (The part about protesters who refuse to denounce property destruction brings up memories of those eco-terrorists, the Earth Liberation Front.)

Okay, have you read the article yet? Well, here was my response :

I applaud your article pointing out the lack of strategic competence of some of the more radical elements of the anti-Bush left. Anyone whose goal is to confront “the systemic problems in this country head on” without any regard to the outcome of their actions is a fool. For someone who’s pragmatic enough to realize that the greater goal of running Bush and his band of fellow extremists from power means having to make some ideological sacrifices, it’s disheartening to realize that a few bad apples could make us all look bad. I’ve never been a big fan of protests, but if their only purpose is to provide an emotional catharsis, maybe everyone would be better off staying home.

What I don’t quite understand is the warning that this might be “Chicago ‘68 all over again”. The big flaw in this argument is that the demonstrations during the 1968 convention were between leftists and the Democratic party. While you were correct to point out the role of COINTELPRO in aggravating the crowd, I think the crucial difference here is that the 1968 riots were the result of a Democratic party that was so fractured that it turned violent. If anything “helped cement” Nixon’s win, it was the fact that the left was so divided over Vietnam that they would never be able to agree on a candidate.

Contrast that with the political situation today. The Iraq war sharply divided the left, costing the Democrats the senate and making a superstar out of Howard Dean, but the recent DNC convention already puts to bed the notion that we’re looking at a possible repeat of the 1968 election. Despite the heated rhetoric during the primary season, the senate hawks like Joe(mentum) Lieberman and doves like Kucinich are united in their support of John Kerry.

If extremists do get out of control during the convention, I have little doubt that the Bush campaign will try to pin it on John Kerry and his supporters. Unfortunately for Republicans, the left already has a fall guy who’s a far more likely to condone this sort of political anarchy. (Hint : His name rhymes with “traitor”.)

Yes, that last part is pretty shitty. Don’t bother calling me a dick in the comments, I know it would be unfair to blame Ralph for violent protests. Politically speaking though, if Bush did try to pin the blame for violent protests on Kerry, telling reporters to look a little further to the left for someone to blame would make sense.

Having had a couple days to think about it (and read the responses that Salon did print), I’m even more disturbed by the views of the protesters in the article. After the millions of people who gathered all over the world to decry the Iraq war accomplished jack shit, I’ve pretty much lost all hope in the power of political protests. It doesn’t help that the most visible people are usually the dumbest.

As far as protests go, I think the only big impact they seem to have (on the mainstream anyways) is the “…and outside the convention, <insert low number here> people gathered to protest Bush’s policies.” that is usually thrown in as an aside by whatever newscaster is parrotting RNC talking points. While this may cause undecideds to think “If that many people are pissed, maybe Bush really is bad.”, I can’t help but think that an equal amount are being turned off by the visuals of whatever flag-burning lunatic the cameramen found.

Here’s my big problem with protests : I usually don’t know what the hell they’re trying to accomplish. And I’m a granola-eating, REM CD-owning, bleeding-heart liberal. I’m not against protests per se, I’m just against engaging in political activities without having a goal. Not that everything should be about converting wishy-washy undecided voters, the success of senate MeetUps proved that there’s definitely a place for “firing up the base” (not that the ABB crowd needs this, anyways). But there’s a big difference between rallying the troops and congregating so you can project your rage.

With the RNC convention around the corner, what’s the point of the protests? Considering how close the election seems to be, I really hope the point is to convince people that Bush’s policies are disastrous for this country. Anything else would seem like time that would be better spent registering people to vote or something. Assuming people plan to show up to highlight Bush’s radical agenda, if this upcoming protest is anything like earlier ones, then it’s gonna fail.

Pay attention to the polls. There are two issues that are foremost on the minds of undecided voters : the economy and the war(s). Not media monopolies. Not Haliburton. Not corporate tax shelters. Not Afghan oil pipelines. Or how Ronald McDonald is a bastard. Yes, all of these issues are closely intertwined, but you don’t have enough space on that placard to explain why. If you want to plant a seed of doubt in their minds about Bush, you’ve gotta consider your audience.

These are people who think Michael Moore is a liar because he’s fat. They like listening to Rush Limbaugh because he’s “funny”. They eat too much fast food. They bought that DVD of the “Friends” finale. They liked Britney Spears before she got “slutty”. They don’t care how awful a company is as long as the prices are low and the selection is large. Yeah, I wouldn’t wanna hang out with these people either, but if you wanna persuade them to accept your argument, you’ve got to talk to them, not yell at them.

Rather than throw around a bunch of slogans that will amuse people that already agree with you, cut to the chase and make sure your message is relevant to those boring people watching at home. There?s a convincing case to be made that four more years of George W. Bush will make life much worse for average Americans. Bush?s ?tax cuts at all costs? policies don?t stimulate the economy. Bush?s obsession with Iraq and missile defense are taking resources away from the war on terror and homeland security. Joe Average doesn?t give a shit about big corporations, he just doesn?t wanna get laid off or killed by terrorists.

So with the election so close, can we replace the ?No Blood For Oil? & ?BU$H? signs with ones that say ?Where are those jobs you promised us two years ago?? & ?While You Chased Saddam, Osama Got Away??

And let me be clear that I?m not saying people shouldn?t protest at all. Far from it. If there was ever an event that needed to be protested, it?s the Republican party?s cynical attempt to make themselves the official party of 9/11. Remember when they floated the idea of having Bush accept the nomination at ground zero? Uggghhhh?.

In fact, if you?re planning on going, let me recommend the Visual Resistance poster site. While I think the anti-war and anti-capitalist messages of some of the posters will be lost on all but the converted, there?s some really great designs in there.

Although I didn’t catch it on TV, the transcript for Bush’s appearance on Larry King Live had a disappointing, but predictable, hint about the upcoming debates :

KING: Are you going to sign off on the debate days?

G. BUSH: Do what now?

KING: They’ve signed — Kerry has agreed to the debate days.

G. BUSH: Oh good.

KING: Have you agreed yet to those four dates? One vice presidential, three presidential.

G. BUSH: I’m sure we have. There will be debates. I don’t think you have to worry about that.

KING: You can pick the dates and times, but last I heard, the White House hadn’t signed off yet? Sign off tonight.

G. BUSH: I’ll be there to debate.

KING: Sign off, you’ll show up.

G. BUSH: Well, I don’t have — frankly, to be honest with you, I don’t have any idea what the dates are. But I’m confident we’ll have the debates.

KING: The three debates and the vice presidential.

G. BUSH: There will be debates.

KING: Will they be key?

G. BUSH: They’re always key. I mean, that gives it — people will tune in and see how we handle the questions and the pressure and the give and take. And I look forward to them.

Granted, the idea that Bush doesn’t know a thing about the upcoming debates shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it is interesting to see that his campaign hasn’t signed off on the dates yet. Perhaps they’re setting up a chance to haggle over the format like they did in 2000 :

In the ongoing “debate on the debates,” Bush had spent a week touting an alternative plan to the proposed three commission debates. He proposed debating in just one of the debate commission venues, in St. Louis, and facing Gore on two television talk shows — NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CNN’s “Larry King Live.” Gore had long supported the commission’s debate proposal, and members of his campaign accused Bush of “ducking” debates with his plan.

But when Gore insisted on holding all three formal debates before discussing any other formats, Bush pointed to several occasions where Gore had offered to debate Bush “anytime, anywhere.”
. . .
“Unlike Vice President Gore, Gov. Bush says what he means and means what he says,” Hughes said.

Is anyone surprised that Bush was more interested in debating on soft-ball interview shows like Larry King than answer (or in Bush’s case, completely avoid) pointed questions from a skilled moderator?

But surely that’s the only time Bush has been too chicken to debate his opponents, right?? Well, let’s take a look back the 2000 primaries :

Five Republican presidential candidates debated for the second straight week minus the leading contender, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas. His absence was a family matter, Bush argued from afar - but opponents in both parties were not in a forgiving mood.

”He’s a chicken,” said the chicken. Actually, it was a Democrat dressed as a yellow-feathered bird carrying a sign that read, ”Chicken George Won’t Debate.”

Bush’s rivals ran with the theme.
. . .
”Perhaps in the future, at a forum like this, if we call it a fund-raiser he might show up,” sniffed publisher Steve Forbes.
. . .
Forbes himself said, ”One candidate thinks he can play by his own rules.”

But the fact is, Bush can. As long as he is the front-runner, he has the most ability to dictate the terms of the campaign.

”I don’t think anybody thinks Bush hurt himself by missing this event,” Republican consultant Scott Reed said after watching the debate at his suburban Washington home.
. . .
”This was a warm-up for the main event, when the front-runner debates in December,” Reed said.

“The main event”? That sounds suspiciously like Arnold’s Schwarzenegger’s debate ducking technique of holding out for the “Super Bowl of debates”. It’s interesting that the less the Republicans address the issues, the better they do in the polls….

And in case you think avoiding the issues is a bipartisan problem, lemme remind you of this challenge from mid-March :

John Kerry?s presidential campaign on Thursday again challenged President Bush to one-on-one debates, saying the fiercely negative tone of the White House race has clouded the issues.
. . .
Kerry?s campaign is pinpointing six battleground states to debate issues where it says the Bush administration has been unsuccessful: homeland security and veterans in Pennsylvania, education in Arizona, the environment in Washington state, jobs and the economy in Ohio, health care in Missouri, and equal opportunity in Florida.

Kerry challenged Bush to monthly debates in mid-March, saying then that ?America shouldn’t have to put up with eight months of sniping.?

In this election, the choices are between a candidate who wants to have a long dialogue about important issues and one whose record is so bad that his best chance to win is to avoid the topic altogether. So keep your eyes peeled folks. Bush is gonna try to weasel out of debating his opponent…again.

Even if Kerry was a hawkish neocon who was obsessed with Saddam, the similarities between Bush and Kerry’s views of the Iraq war end with the Congressional resolution to authorize the use of force. This Washington Post article makes the point well (via Daniel Drezner):

Bush’s position is that if Kerry agrees with him that Hussein was a problem, then Kerry agrees with his Iraq policy. Doing something about Iraq meant doing what Bush did. But is that true? Did the United States have to go to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their job? Did it have to junk the U.N. process? Did it have to invade with insufficient troops to provide order and stability in Iraq? Did it have to occupy a foreign country with no cover of legitimacy from the world community? Did it have to ignore the State Department’s postwar planning? Did it have to pack the Iraqi Governing Council with unpopular exiles, disband the army and engage in radical de-Baathification? Did it have to spend a fraction of the money allocated for Iraqi reconstruction — and have that be mired in charges of corruption and favoritism? Was all this an inevitable consequence of dealing with the problem of Saddam Hussein?

While many on the left would rather cede the point that the views of Bush and Kerry are the same on Iraq, I think it’s important to confront charges like these head-on and shine light on the fact that Bush is a complete screwup.

While I’ve been pretty vocal about what I thought was a chickenshit move by the Democrats to authorize Bush’s war approval, the time for infighting about this issue is over. Especially when the differences between the candidates are clear to everyone who’s willing to examine the war on terms other than the ones that are outlined by the Republican party. The GOP wants to convince voters that there’s no difference between Kerry or Bush on Iraq, because they know that undecideds will hesitate to go for a challenger who doesn’t differ drastically from the incumbent. Their goal is to subconsciously convince voters that every mistake Bush made was inevitable and that the only decision-making process that should be examined is that one that took place on the floor of the senate.

It bears repeating that Bush was given a free pass and he squandered it. Every decision he made was bad, and it’s unfair to pin that blame on the Democrats who gave him the authorization. It’s not Kerry’s fault that Bush kneecapped the weapons inspectors, punished every person who gave him realistic estimates for the war’s cost (in terms of dollars and personnel), or was too goddamned stupid to realize that Iraq’s rival factions wouldn’t be very happy about an American-installed “democracy”. If Kerry’s lame decision to back the Iraq war resolution should be held up to scrutiny, so should every decision that Bush made regarding the war’s planning and execution.

That needs to be highlighted.

Both Atrios and Kos heartily approve of the Daily Howler’s concise version of Kerry’s war position :

KERRY?S POSITION: I voted to give President Bush the authority. Then President Bush f*cked it up.

Of course, Kerry used almost these exact same words when being interviewed last year :

Did you feel you were blindsided by Dean’s success?

Well, not blindsided. I mean, when I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, “I’m against everything”? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.

Like I mentioned a few months back, I really like John Kerry when he’s relaxing and being himself. Maybe if he weren’t such a politician and would let his guard down a little more, people would see through all this flip-flopper bullshit.

Wow. Oliver Willis has a link to this shocking report about the family that’s publishing the book by those swift boat dickheads :

William Regnery II, an heir to the Regnery publishing fortune who’s a prime mover and shaker in white nationalism publishing, is moving into a new line of business: match-making for “heterosexual whites of Christian cultural heritage.”

In an appeal to potential investors titled “Population is Destiny,” the famously reclusive Regnery wrote this March that the Caucasian dating service would be no ordinary money-making opportunity, but a chance to ensure “the survival of our race,” which “depends upon our people marrying, reproducing and parenting.”

Regnery, who says he’s long been concerned with a “tendency to bachelorhood” among white men, told the potential investors that his latest effort to save the white race would not stop with match-making.

The dating service, he says, will be only the “first arrow in a business quiver” providing “services and products to whites.”

Promoting white nationalism is nothing new for Regnery ? or his family. His grandfather, William I, signed incorporation papers for the America First Committee, an organization that opposed fighting Nazi Germany in World War II. His father, Henry, created Regnery Publishing, one of the major purveyors of books by right-wing attack dogs like Anne Coulter and G. Gordon Liddy.

Now I’m really uncomfortable with the slur that many liberals jump to that all Republicans/conservatives are racist. I think it’s a pretty degrading stereotype and one that lumps in the fiscal and small government conservatives that aren’t racist (like John McCain) with the social conservative lunatics.

But at the same time, this is an association that conservatives like McCain have chosen to make. I know I could never feel at home in a party that’s become the de facto home for white supremacists, so I think it’s worth asking publicly whether or not the views of their extremist peers reflect their own. Sure, we may already know the answer, but considering that this is the same group that plays the “denounce your extremists” game at every opportunity (ex. the MoveOn “Hitler” ad), I think it’s only fair to fight fire with fire and score some political points.

So let’s hear it. Who’s gonna be the first pundit to mention the Swift Boat Vet’s ties to a racist dating service??

I’ve been reading Paul Krugman’s “The Great Unraveling” lately, and this column about the “heartland” / “red states” got me thinking…

But what’s really outrageous is the claim that the heartland is self-reliant. That grotesque farm bill, by itself, should put an end to all such assertions; but it only adds to the immense subsidies the heartland already receives from the rest of the country. As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.

And within the red states, it’s the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes. The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite.
. . .
There’s no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it’s a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations ? mainly, though not entirely, red states ? disproportionate representation in the senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.

But while this raw political clout is a fact of life, at least we can demand an end to the hypocrisy. The heartland has no special claim to represent the “real America.” And the blue states have a right to ask why, at a time when the federal government has plunged back into deficit, when essential domestic programs are under assault, a small minority of heavily subsidized Americans should feel that they are entitled to even more aid.

Wouldn’t have been great if Lincoln decided to just let the Confederacy secede? Yeah, that’s a pretty snarky question, but it’s one that’s popped into my head every once in a while. I’m not much of a civil war buff, but I’ve often wondered what things would be like if the Confederacy had remained intact.

Of course the big con in all this is the obvious one : slavery would have continued for decades after the war ended. Hell, considering that the civil rights act only happened 40 years ago (and isn’t well enforced in at least one state I can name), is it possible that slavery would still be legal in the south? Would the shift from an agricultural to and industrial society society see the slaves move from the fields to the assembly line?

And what about the Union? With their politicians no longer forced to pander to “the heartland”, would this mean that many progressive reforms that we’re still fighting for would be common (such as increased union protection, universal healthcare, and equal rights for homosexuals)? How would politics have evolved without a legislature and electoral system that disproportionally favors the south?

How would the respective countries had developed in the 140+ years since secession? In particular, would the agricultural/industrial dichotomy have forced the two countries into an uneasy trade relationship? Would the countries even get along today? Would the problems that led to the civil war ingnited a war at some point in the future?

Like I said before, I don’t know a whole lot about this stuff so forgive me if these questions have been posed a million times before. I know playing “alternate history” is a game the experts love to play, so if there’s a good book about this stuff, I’d love to hear about it (no sci-fi, please). The more I read the news, the more I’m attracted by the idea of a United States in which the government isn’t held hostage by a radical minority. Especially when the reasonable majority want a smarter, more responsible government that ensures all citizens are treated fairly and protected equally.

Great rants against the Olympics at Crooked Timber and Political Animal, though I’ve gotta disagree with one of the points Kevin makes :

Part of the essential ambience of watching a sporting event, I think, is seeing the whole thing, even the boring bits where nothing much is happening. When you edit a 4-hour event down to 30 minutes of pure action, it may be exciting but it just isn’t sports anymore. It’s a video game.

Now I agree that failing to show the events live in lieu of having a tape-delayed highlight reel sucks, but the brevity of the Olympics is what I find to be its greatest appeal (even if it does sometimes seem like a “video game”).

Compared to most people, I’m not a sports fan at all. Professional sports are so ubiquitous, that the concept of “sports” often turns me off. I really like some aspects of boxing and baseball, but I hate basketball and football. Having been caught in the middle of a mini-riot following a Lakers championship a few years ago sealed it for me. For all the endless talk about Shaq and Kobe, I really don’t give a shit.

But the Olympics are different. With so many sports to be covered in such a short amount of time, there isn’t time for the commercialization and celebrity worship that have ruined professional sports. The Olympics have just enough coverage to introduce a sport, briefly discuss the competitors, and show the competition. I don’t care about archery any more than I do basketball, but I loved the hour of it I saw in 2000. And by the time you get sick of the sport, they’ve moved on to something else.

Also, the Olympics really bring out the nationalist in me. When I’m watching, I want “our team” to kick ass. When someone is representing their country, you can really feel the patriotism in the air. Hell, this is probably the only two weeks every four years where people are waving the flag because they love their country, rather than hate their ideological “enemies”. Professional athletes, however, are often motivated by money and personal glory. My fellow Angelenos may have loved their hometown hero Shaq, but once he lost a championship, he caught the first plane out of town. It’s hard to feel an affinity for a team when its members are a paycheck away from stabbing their fans in the back.

So yeah, the Olympic coverage may be spotty and unpredictable, but if you keep switching between NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, and Telemundo, you’ll find something to watch. And when it’s all over, there’s nothing in the realm of professional sports that can compare to the feeling of watching an athlete standing on a pedestal, wearing a gold medal, and hearing their national anthem.