It is fun to put people on the hot spot with these hypotheticals, but only because most people react defensively and only come up with the perfect response too late. Here's what Wilkow *should* have said:

"I absolutely would save the two year old, because it would be a purely emotional gut reaction to a screaming child, now here's a question for you: Imagine you are in a burning hospital room with two women who have broken legs and you can only help one of them. Imagine that one of these women is obviously very pregnant. Which one do you save?"

My gut reaction would be to save the pregnant woman, even though I am as staunchly pro-choice as they come. Does it mean my ethics are just a hodgepodge of self-contradictions? No - or rather maybe, but more importantly it means that none of us - right and left - have all the answers to all of life's moral quandaries. We just do the best we can, and hope that we're never in situations where we have children hanging out of buses, or burning fertility clinics!

but I'll echo what an earlier poster said about a Brown's fan now rooting for the Colts. It's one thing if the team leaves because no one is going to the games and no one is making any money, but teams that pull these dead-of-the-night moves from cities with a loyal and paying audience should be shunned by anyone who loves their own local team. I don't know why cities and states don't just pony up the money to buy the teams themselves. In some cases it would be cheaper than building the stadiums!

Wasn't there some study that showed the winner of the coin flip in ot was only slightly more likely to win the game? In other words, like most of your edicts, they're solutions to problems that don't exist. I mean the whole "killing our fans" thing? Thank goodness you're around to rescue the NFL from the slow steady decline it's been experiencing for the last decade... oh wait.

I can agree with you about the celebration and socks rules changes, but otherwise most rules have a purpose, and while the "if it looks like a fumble" thing sounds good, most rules are filling in perfectly valid hole. Take for instance the "tuck" rule. If you agree that a there's a distinction between a qb badly throwing a pass because he just got creamed from behind and dropping the ball because of same, then one has to make a determination about when the QB starts and finishes the act of throwing the ball. Tossing out these rules would lead to more problems with officiating not less. Would you prefer situations where officials get to make up the rules and change them at will?

As for the kicking game, your problem about a single player who's role is radically different than that of his teammates can be applies to every sport with a goal, which is most of them. Why go after kickers and not goalies? Secondly, the fun thing about field goals is that it increases the pace of the end game because it shortens the field. Instead of the near hopeless task of marching 90 yards down the field you only have to go 55 or so. Otherwise what you'd have is a "prevent" defense that actually prevented scoring, and no one wants that!

Regarding the hours worked it seems to me that that's a little bit of a chicken and egg. Do employees get paid more because they work more hours or do they work more hours because they're paid more. I know that I feel a heck of a lot more of obliged to work the occasional weekend for my generous salary than I would if I felt like my employer were underpaying me. In other words if we paid teachers 6 figures, don't you think that the number of hours they worked would sky-rocket? Wouldn't school boards expect their teachers to work longer hours at that pay? I know I would.

It's all because of balance. Since the facts and truth have a well-known liberal bias, liberal (eg. correct) pundits must be balanced with conservative (eg. consistently wrong) pundits. To eliminate all of the wildly inaccurate political prognosticators would leave editorial pages with nothing but fact-based unbalanced editorialists!

As long as you're bullying little kids, you might as well take their lunch money! Just kidding by the way, I can't wait until my nephew is old enough to know he's being beaten by his Uncle (it's no fun at age two when they barely grasp the concept of competition).

I don't watch any college basketball for 11 months a year, but it is usual for the announcers to acknowledge that a foul was called correctly but argue (seriously) that the call should have been made differently just to keep the fouling player in (thus potentially altering the outcome)? I mean if the argument is that the refs should "keep themselves out of the game" then that's the worst way to do it. Actually the argument seems more to be that he's a nice guy and doesn't deserve to be fouled out because he's such a nice young gentleman. WTH?!