It's been so long since I've ventured onto the so-called "major networks" in prime time. When I'm looking for something to watch in the evening, the "big 3" networks don't even enter my consciousness.

I mostly rely on classic movies from TCM, or re-runs of "Law and Order" on TNT. Or I watch the Fox Soccer Channel. Or Jeopardy! The rest is mostly recycled crap and repetitious shows about narcissistic people (e.g., "The Real Housewives of Orange County").

One thing the drones who create TV sitcoms have never caught on to is how counter-productive the laugh track is. By inserting the same canned, repetitious laughter over and over into sitcom shows that are already mindlessly stupid and unfunny, they actually introduce an offensive element into them.

Do you need to be cued to laugh at the proper moments like a Pavlovian dog? The next time you're watching "Everybody Loves Raymond", notice how the laugh track dumbs down an already dumb show.

As a long-time sports fan (and I mean loooooooooong time), who grew up with the likes of Ernie Banks, Jerry West and Y. A. Tittle, I just don't take men's professional sports seriously any more.

I [i]would[/i] like to see salary caps imposed on professional athletes. I mean, it's always been kind of obscene to hear about a shortstop making more money than the GDP of many small countries. How many houses in the Bahamas or Maseratis do you need, Bubba? It's particularly troubling these days, when more and more Americans find themselves out of work and unable to keep up with their mortgage payments, to hear about a guy getting paid millions of dollars to throw or catch a ball.

But that's the free market operating, they tell me, so who am I to argue?

I just don't care any more. Sure, I'll watch these guys on television, if I have nothing better to do. But pay $100 or more for a ticket to go and see them play?

I don't think so.

Want to know where it's at in sports these days?

Women's sports.

Check out women's college basketball, or the WNBA. Check out women's softball. The level of athleticism is very high. Those gals can really [i]play.[/i] And there's no steroids. Or $$$multi-million salaries.

Just people who play for the love of the game. And do it very well.

...on Camille's latest column...

1. I agree completely about the Fairness Doctrine. Good Lord, liberals, if you can't put on a political talk show to compete with Rush Limbaugh, don't then try to muzzle the fat guy behind the EIB microphone. That flies in the face of every American value we hold dear.

2. Who cares about talk radio, anyway? Limbaugh's show is mindlessly partisan, and boring, besides. Anybody who listens to political talk radio has some serious credibility issues.

3. Speaking strictly for myself, Camille, I couldn't care less about your crush on Nigella or your preoccupation with Kate Winslett. And your observations on the cultural scene, e.g., several paragraphs devoted to Justin Timberlake, were tedious and trite.

After defending your column month after month, I think I'm going to join the legions of Salon readers who repeatedly ask, month after month.......

Isn't this column a waste of space?

We care for them as if they are children, but to them, you are just another dog. Dogs can happily move from one family to another and can give two shits about you, as long as the new alpha is providing food and shelter.

There is truth in what you say, but I think there is much about doggie psychology that we don't really understand.

Do our dogs love us? Yes.

Would our dogs miss us if they were shifted to another family? Yes.

While it's true that our dogs see us as other dogs....leaders of the pack....there's no question that they feel love and devotion toward us.

In many ways, canine love is superior to human love. For one thing, it's a lot less complicated. And it's unconditional.

It would be great to get a perspective on what Republicans in this country are really thinking. As a Democrat myself, I really don't understand these people. It would be nice to get a true perspective.

However, it appears that Pelosi has focused her work only on those Republicans who attended political rallies, who she says she thinks are totally non-representative.

If she thinks crazies and everyone who goes to political rallies are unrepresentative by definition, why does she focus on those people?

Why does she apparently focus just on the idiotic things that people at rallies say? Why doesn't she interview republicans who *don't* go to rallies if she thinks those at rallies are morons and unrepresentative?

Apparently, she went after the freak show for it's shock value, instead of doing a honest journalistic investigation of what Republicans think.

Actually, the crazy element that Ms. Pelosi deliberately (and charitably) tried to downplay in her film...those people actually are the Republican party of today. They are the reason the GOP is so marginalized in 2009. The party has sold its soul to sleazy hucksters like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and rallied 'round empty-headed twits like Sarah Palin. Eight years of leadership by the stupid element (George Bush) and the vicious element (Dick Cheney) have left the Republican party dispirited and ethically bankrupt.

The 25% of Americans who desperately cling to the GOP in 2009 are among the stupidest and most morally vacuous of Americans. They actually do believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim, that he is a socialist, and that we must "win" in Iraq at all costs.

How do I know this? I talk to them every day, at political forums like Debate Policy and FreeRepublic.com. And they really are that stupid.