First, I don't see why the Portland Trail Blazers should get to pick Oden just because they were one of the worst teams last year, and then they won a lottery among the worst teams. If being bad is the reason to be able to pick a franchise player -- i.e., if that's the premise of policy -- then a team's badness should be averaged over time and the lottery ought to be eliminated. In other words, the team with the worst total record over the five previous years ought to get the top pick, but no such team can have the top pick two years in a row.

Second, the Washington Post is dragging its readers through the "War and Peace" version of the Vice President's obvious mastery of the federal bureaucracy and the White House's processes.

No one needs to read a word of these articles to know that Vice President Cheney has more than ample experience from which he doubtlessly learned that getting anything done in government is nearly impossible and it takes tremendous drive, focus, and power over appointments, plus loyalty, to achieve anything. Historians will ponder long and hard, however, two things: (1) what are the deepest and truest of the Vice President's goals and (2) what is the difference between the goals of the President and the Vice President, or are they synonymous. I will be interested to see if the Washington Post series answers either question. Bureaucratic maneuvering is, from beginning to end, not that interesting a topic, it seems to me.

Third, I don't see how the Redskins can get significantly better given that they have made almost no personnel moves, but perhaps putting the franchise and Coach Gibbs' reputation in the hands of Jason Campbell suffices. By contrast, if the Patriots don't win the Super Bowl, it will be either injuries or the collapse of Tom Brady's psyche that is responsible, because they have loaded up during the off-season.

Fourth, who can stop the Red Sox? The pitching alone looks World Series caliber to me, and btw this may be the year of Japan for MLB.

Fifth, obviously Michael Bloomberg should be someone's vice presidential candidate, as opposed to him running as an independent. I think the Constitution precludes Senator Clinton from making that selection so if I'm right on that, then Senator Obama has one heck of an opportunity. Obama-Bloomberg is mighty powerful, and to say the least has a lot of financial firepower, not to mention an obvious heir to Dick Cheney in terms of a vice president who can get means to reach ends in the time frame of a Presidency, although one presumes his ends would differ. Thompson-Bloomberg would be dynamite too, so Democrats should not assume the mayor would be on their ticket; he's an Eisenhower figure in his political ambiguity, isn't he? For that matter, McCain-Bloomberg would be powerful.

Sixth, the Supreme Court is the epicenter of a new conservatism that will shape the rule of law for 10 to 20 years to come.

Seventh, if the NFL were to focus even more on concussions, then helmet design would have to be changed. Why isn't that being discussed, or is it?

Eighth, is Colbert now more important to political discourse than the Daily Show? if yes, how does Stewart feel about that?

Ninth, is the written word very important to the evolution of culture anymore? I'm not sure that it matters all that much, except insofar as it influences those who have impact on culture. Isn't Michael Moore (even) more influential on politics than any writer? Isn't Al Gore's influence something that stems much more from his movie than anything he's written? So shouldn't the New York Times primarily be audible and visual if its owners want impact?

Tenth and mercifully last from the grab-bag of Sunday night, if Jason Campbell isn't really great, won't the Redskins lose ten games? And if that happens, won't Coach Gibbs resign? Not a happy prospect, except for those who believe the Skins are cursed because of their intransigence over changing their name.