Is there a more grating, irritating, awful, horrible, annoying PA announcer than the clown in Miami? The pregame introductions could not have possibly been worse. And then his having to prod the crowd to start chants (such as the always invigorating "let's go heat!") actually made me mad. What ever happened to the schtick-free PA announcer? The dude who just announced to the crowd the important things that were happening in the game, and weren't also the head cheerleader? Remember the guy from the forum in LA? He had a great voice, and all he did was say the player's name after a basket - "James Worthy." Not this ridiculous "SHAQUUUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLEEE O'NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAL" crap after every made basket.

The guy in Detroit gives the Miami guy a run for his money, but what makes the Miami guy extra horrible is that there is nothing unique or interesting about his voice - he's just a dude who has a deep love for his own voice screaming into a microphone. It brings a falsity to the proceedings - let the crowd get excited on its own ... trust me, when a big play happens, they will respond. They don't need your prodding, Mr. Obnoxious PA Announcer. Please, please - for the sake of us all - just shut up.

As a novice soccer fan who has immensely enjoyed watching this World Cup, I have to agree and disagree with some of the ideas here. What soccer does not need is more scoring - the elegance and purity of the game rests on some of those 1-0 nailbiters. What soccer does need is less of the games to be decided by the officials.

By far more than anything else, what has floored me is teams' consistent acceptance of the officials horrible, horrible calls - calls that unquestionably cost them the game. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I feel like Americans want the referee to be a behind-the-scenes character in the game, not the decider of it. I remember hearing the phrase that a good referee (or umpire) is one you don't notice. It seems like in every one of these games, the outcome is determined - either directly (penalty kicks) or indirectly (sendoffs) by the referee. If I was a player who had prepared for 4 years for this event, that would make me plenty pissed.

I really like the suggestion made by another poster of having another referee on the field. For one ref to cover that much ground, and see every play as they happen at breakneck speed, is unrealistic. Dives are capable of being discerned with slo-mo instant replay, but at game speed they are almost impossible to distinguish from legitimate fouls. Having another referee able to cover half the field would allow these guys to actually do their job instead of just trying to keep up with the action. Have you seen the refs at the end of a game? They look like they just ran across Wyoming.

The use of cards is out of hand - these guys toss out more cards than a blackjack dealer on a fight night. To me, a yellow card should be only for flagrant fouls, and to get a red card, you should pretty much have to punch someone in the face. A hard slide tackle is not a flagrant foul. Battling in the air for a header is not a flagrant foul. Kicking someone in the groin while they're on the ground would be a flagrant foul. As it stands now, the penalty far outweighs the infraction, and that impacts games in a way it shouldn't.

Otherwise, these ideas to widen the goal or change offsides for more scoring are ridiculous.

I'm going to propose another meta-conspiracy theory, that Loose Change is a conspiracy not to actually report the truth, but to make enough noise that people actually start asking some questions. Sometimes the only way to get people's attention is to make patently ridiculous and controversial claims (see Ann Coulter). Of course making people disappear off of Flight 93 after it landed in Cleveland is absurd ... but as many posters have pointed out, there are many, many things about the events leading up to and the day of 9/11 that don't add up. When so many elements come together to produce an event of such magnitude and complexity, there are going to be some coincidences that seem like they had to have been orchestrated, even though they were not (see Intelligent Design). The fact that Loose Change points out some of these coincidences serves an important purpose - to get people thinking and talking.

The amount of true-believerism that the American public displayed in swallowing everything it was told surrounding 9/11 (see Saddam Hussein's "connection") is somewhat appalling, especially considering the track record of our current administration, which consistently has proven its willingness to lie and mislead as means to its desired end. The point is this: Loose Change serves as an important jumping-off point to get people talking. And the more people talk and explore, the more information can come out of this. Yes, some of its wild, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories are almost laughable. But even more laughable (in a depressing way) has been our country's blind faith in what it has been told by its leaders and biased "experts," especially considering all of the various components of 9/11 that don't exactly match up with the official story.

It's never too late to start asking questions.