Was "Avatar" a "great" movie or not?

I have been intending to write this ever since I saw "Avatar" nearly a month ago, but hadn't got around to it.  Ravaged by the flu and bored out of my mind from sitting around and feeling sick, and with the Oscars on in a few hours, now seems like the time...

--WARNING, CONTAINS SPOILERS!--

either that, or it won't make any sense if you haven't sen it!

I think the most striking impression I got from experiencing "Avatar" was the realization that the highest-grossing movie of all time, and indeed one of the biggest "cinematic game changers" ever, may be little more than an eloquently packaged screed against imperialism, exploitation of resources, and the military-industrial complex.  It may very well be the most anti-American film to achieve any level of mainstream box-office success, let alone the phenomenon it has become.

Don't get me wrong, I loved every freaking minute of it, realizing all along that I was being goaded into cheering the killing of American warriors and the destruction of a capitalist enterprise that had become exploitative to the point of derangement.  I knew what was happening at every turn and rode right along with it, and I enjoyed the hell out of watching it; Jake Sully turned against his own race to save the Na'vi and I was willing to join the fight right along side of him, to turn back the ugly imperialist cur that was the human race, or more specifically the American capitalist war machine.  

The predictability of the movie was hardly an issue, frankly some of the more "predictable" movies have been some of the better ones, and to complain about the alleged "simplicity" of the story line, or lament the "retread" nature of the basic theme is to entirely miss the point.  What "Avatar" was about more than anything else was the compulsion of mankind to destroy whatever is beautiful, and the lesson is that some things, no matter how valuable we may think they are, should just be left the fuck alone.

Now, I'm a political contrarian, a bit of a tree-hugger, and probably even a misanthrope, so cheering against the impulses of my race, my country, and my socio-politcal environment is hardly difficult.  Most people don't really want to know how I really feel about the fallibility of the American Empire so I largely leave these things to myself.  What strikes me is how popular the movie is, and how little that "popular buzz" centers around the fact that millions of Americans are enthralled by a film directly condemning their lifestyle.

James Cameron himself admits the film "implicitly criticizes America's role in the Iraq War and the impersonal nature of mechanized warfare in general", it uses the term "shock and awe" without irony; and Gen. Quaritch, the leader of "Sec-Ops" portrayed in an almost comic-bookish over the top, bloodthirsty manner, uses the term "terrorists" to describe the native Na'vi in their attempts to overrun the human mining colony to expel the unwanted interlopers to their homeland.  Cameron tries to claim the film "is not un-American"  but I'm not buying.

The most striking scene of the entire movie -- when the "Sec-Ops" commercial military force destroys the "Hometree," the home of the Omaticaya tribe of the Na'vi Jake Sully has been indoctrinated into -- and the scene most clearly meant to turn the viewers hearts to the cause of the natives, and against Us, and expose the recklessness, ruthlessness, and heartlessness of the Imperial invaders, clearly and unabashedly evokes memories of 9-11 and the collapse of the Twin Towers.  Cameron can deny it all he wants, but it is self-evident that he is turning America's victimization around on us, and reminding us all "yeah, remember, this is what it feels like!"

It goes beyond that, the inhuman decision to destroy the center of Na'vi religion, the "Tree of Souls" is termed a "pre-emptive strike" by the invading humans, in an attempt to destroy the Na'vi will to fight and subdue them into submission.

And what's the path to salvation for the Na'vi, and ultimately for Pandora itself?  Its the "neural network" of all living things on the planet.  The filmmakers latched onto an important idea here, as we can all relate to "networking" in the era of high-speed internet, smartphones, and social networking platforms.  In the same way we can admire the founders of companies like Google for their insight and vision in helping to "bring the world together", we can relate to the bravery of Jake Sully for being willing to find a way to "plug into" Pandora and become only the 6th "Toruk Makto" and save the planet and its inhabitants.  

Make no mistake, this movie is, and will continue to, make a killing in foreign markets, which has become the key in our contemporary globalized marketplace to Hollywood releases really raking in the cash.  It should be pretty obvious why.  This movie, more than anything, encapsulates the failure of the American Empire, it succinctly portrays a failure of excess capitalism, excess militarism, and excess exploitation  in as entertaining a manner as possible.  If the popular global view is that the American Age has run its course and will inevitably subside, this is eye candy at its finest! (to be fair, let me just mention in passing the somewhat atrocious environmental and human-rights record of, oh, say, China... but that's another topic for another day)

To re-iterate, all these things I am saying are what I LIKED about the movie!  I'm not sure what that says about me.  Look, I thought Pandora was a cool place, the Na'vi were beautiful... umm... people, and it would be one helluva time to get to ride an Ikran (I'll leave the Toruk to the other Jake.)  Maybe it makes me a dork, but I'd like to go climbing in the floating mountains, live in the Hometree, and be able to plug into a network that connects me with the forest itself.  I completely understand how some people have experienced the "Avatar blues," the disappointing comedown to reality that many have experienced after seeing the film.  I even got a little of it myself, mainly due to the adrenaline surge I got from being plugged into this "virtual world."  As I commented after the movie "its about something more beautiful than we will ever have, and if we did, we would just try to destroy it," and frankly, that kind of left me in a funk for a couple days.

"Pandora" is a dreamworld, a place that humans are unwilling or unable to understand, and where we don't belong.  We see it through the eyes of Jake Sully, who must live it to understand it, and we are given only a tantalizing piece of it.  I left wanting more, and any movie that can accomplish that must work, somehow...

There will always be the detractors.  The story is seen as too linear and formulaic -- but I gotta be honest, if given the choice between a story like this and the ridiculousness that was "Dark Knight" I'll usually take the former  -- and the dialogue has been panned as trite.  The obvious tomato to throw at this movie is to demean it as "not letting a story get in the way of all the special effects." 

Thing is, so what... The message that was clearly meant to be gotten across was clearly gotten across.  I went into this movie expecting nothing, I figured it would be similar to my "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" experience where I went in expecting nothing and came out with a sore ass and the tangible impression I had wasted my time and money (and that was a hugely popular movie, I saw the second out of cultural obligation and to this day have never watched the 3rd).  Instead, I came out strangely affected, with the very real impression I had experienced something noteworthy.

Let me go a step further, kids.  Lets analyze the dialogue from the original "Star Wars" arc.  Lets break apart and analyze the story telling.  The fact is, that doesn't matter... what matters is that we were taken for a ride and we enjoyed the hell out of it, and maybe we even learned something about ourselves from the experience.  I'm not entirely sure what You're looking for out of an afternoon at a theatre, but any more, that's worth it to me...

I would liken it to a led Zeppelin song.  Don't spend too much time worrying about the lyrics, or the origins of it, just enjoy it what for what it is.

 So it all comes back to my original question, which was is its a "Great" movie.  To each his own, and to each his own definition of what makes a movie "great."  In my jaded and cynical world, any movie that could have that kind of an emotional impact has to have done something right.  Sure it was "great," and it may have even been "best"  of 2009.

"Global Warming" is the anecdotal moniker for the larger issue of climate change as an observed and projected effect of an increase in atmospheric levels of "greenhouse gasses," primarily carbon dioxide, as a result of human activity.  This is based on empirical atmospheric and climate data, and has gained the approval of a preponderance of scientists involved in climatic and atmospheric studies, and closely related fields.  

As we have seen with other controversial scientific conclusions, a political controversy inevitably follows when the science doesn't fit the narrative that politicians and certain media wish to construct to support their causes.  We have seen this with evolution, over which a meaningful political debate still rages, despite the fact that a meaningful scientific debate ended some time ago.

Although the scientific research regarding so called "global warming" goes back 50+ years, the scientific conclusions and consensus are seen in popular and political culture as relatively new, and thus is questioned in certain political narratives as being untried and untested, and thus untrustworthy.  This logic takes advantage of the inherent uncertainty built into scientific research, in which the even the most well-established theories are constantly challenged and shaped by new findings.

Contemporary American politics lacks the methodology to take on complex issues, particularly of a scientific nature, given the importance in politics to stay on "message" and present apparent solutions in the form of concise and easily parsed "sound bites" to communicate unambiguous ideology.  As such, it has become clear to me that taking our cues on such issues from political leaders and their associated political media talking heads is a serious mistake, and can only result in a misinformed public.

in an effort to demonstrate the quixotic nature of picking NFL games, many media outlets have taken to employing unusual methods or people to make their picks. In the spirit of this, I present my roommate, Jozy. -ed.

Hey everyone! The Super Bowl is this Sunday, and my roommate told to get off my furry ass and post my pick before I forget, like I did for the conference final games two weeks ago. Yeah, about that... ummm, sometimes I fall asleep and forget things.

Also, I may have upset some people with my alleged anti-people comments three weeks ago. Let me just make it clear that humans and cats have a long, successful relationship, that goes back to the very beginnings of civilization. I just get frustrated sometimes... the people I grew up and lived with for a few years had to move, so I had to go to a homeless shelter for a few months before I found my current roommate, Jake, so forgive me if I get pissed off at people sometimes...

SUPER BOWL XLIV: Indianapolis Colts by 5 over New Orleans Saints, over/under=56

The game is supposed to start at 3:30 local time, which is 6:30 Eastern time. Why doesn't the game start at 1pm/4pm Eastern? Isn't that when most football games start? What's wrong with playing the game at a normal time for a Sunday football game? It won't interfere with church (in fact, the 1pm west-coast start would make it easier on churches to have post-service parties, as many of them do anyway). Its not like an afternoon start will get in the way of other events, since most people clear their calendar that day anyway. Also, the game won't end until about 10pm or later eastern time, which seems kinda late to me (although I'm a cat, and thus lack normal circadian rhythms and sleep cycles, which combined with superior night vision and strong senses make me adept at prowling in low light levels, so there is no "late" to me. I sleep when I want and patrol when I want... I don't give a shit what time it is, except when its time to eat)

So, where was I... oh yeah, the start time... don't tell me its because of "prime time" nonsense! The game is sunday, the one day humans act like cats!!!

I'm glad the Colts and Saints are in this game. Jake told me a while ago that these were the two best teams, and I guess it makes sense the two best teams should play for the championship. other than that, if you want insight, go to espn or something, I'm not sure what analysis you expected out of a cat...

So I'm predicting the Colts will win 30.5-25.5, which is an exact push on both the point spread and over-under. okay, fine, that's an impossible score... but lets just have fun and see how close I get!

I'd rather look at the money line: Colts are -210 (bet 210 to win 100) and the Saints are +175 (bet 100 to win 175). This is the "outright winner" bet, and if you like the underdog outright, bet it. Well, the hell with it, lets put a catnip mouse on the Saints!

since its the Super Bowl, lets look at some of the other best you can make:

http://www.americasline.com/superbowlodds.aspx

I think its a slam dunk the Who play "Won't get Fooled Again" at half-time, so I'll go ahead and bet a couple salmon treats on that! I think there will be 7 TD's scored (+400) I'll also put some down on Manning to win the MVP (+100), and the Colts to win by 1-6 points at 7/2. Past Super Bowl trends have been a lot of action in the 4th quarter, so lets go with 4th quarter as highest scoring at +170. I also think the first score will be a field goal (+140). As for most of that other shit, I have no idea, but there are a couple near the top I like. I always like to put something down on "there will be a special teams or defensive TD" although the odds aren't that great (-180), and it never hurts to put a little on "there will be a safety" at +1200!

Okay, so overall these bets don't make any sense... but who cares, lets put $10 imaginary on each and see what happens! I actually think it'll be a close game, and I have a good feeling about the Saints. I think the Colts will win, but the Saints will cover, and I even think it may be under... maybe something like 30-26...

Enjoy the game, everyone!

In a busy week of Sounders and MLS news and activity, one news story was somewhat overlooked.  On Wednesday, Sounder FC management announced that 2010 season tickets would be "capped" at 32,000 (over 31,0000 have been sold).  This, along with existing plans to set Qwest/RBP seating capacity for League matches at about 36,000 means that we can reasonably expect Sounders' average attendance figures for this upcoming season to exceed 35,000.

While this would more than double the MLS average attendance for 2009 (16,120) many cynics have hastened to point out that the MLS is a poorly-supported niche sport in the American big-time sports landscape (not necessarily true, more on that later). Added to that is the seemingly endless consternation of many in the sports community that a "sellout" is deemed such even though it only constitutes selling just more than half of Qwest's 67,000 seat capacity.

I am here to point out that these two arguments miss the point entirely. In fact, America's perception of crowd size is completely skewed by the enormous draw of college football and the NFL, and to a lesser extent Major League Baseball. The numerical mathematical facts are, that from a "global" or even "European"perspective, 35,000+ is a shit-ton of people to draw to your games 15+ times a year.

Let's start by looking at some tables -- absolutely every bit of data I am drawing from is easily found by anyone using google and Wikipedia.  First is a listing of the attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues, listed by average attendance.  The first thing that should jump out at you is the immense popularity of the NFL, although there are always a number of mitigating circumstances with regards to attendance figures, the two biggest being number of games and also obviously the population of the nation involved.  (as an aside, it is interesting to note that far and way the most popular league in the world in terms of raw attendance is Major League Baseball, which is somewhat stunning in and of itself).

One thing this list does not provide for is the aforementioned extraordinary popularity if major-college football in America.  To begin to gain an appreciation for this, let's look at the list of largest stadiums in the world, ranked by seated capacity.    No less than 12 of the top 25 "largest" stadiums in the world are American college football stadiums, or stadiums built or used primarily for that purpose, with an additional 1 more stadium in the top 25 an NFL stadium (Fed-Ex Field, home of the Washington Redskins).  And we know from anecdotal knowledge these college teams generally sell out all their home games.

Obviously, there are a lot of people in the United States and Canada attending professional or major-college sporting events, and when you include "indoor" sports figures it all becomes more clear.  The combined population of USA and Canada is 342 million people (about 0.05% of the 6.8 billion people on the planet, compare this to Western Europe's 397 million -- 0.06%), but the region is ridiculously wealthy, the GDP of the USA alone is $14.2 Trillion, or about 20.5% of the global GDP of $69 trillion (compare to the European Union -- which includes more than just "western Europe" at $15.2 trillion)
[all figures from Wikipedia]  Obviosuly, let's skip altruism for the moment and remember that it really is about the money!

So lets revisit the MLS average attendance figures for 2009.  Many cynical or jaundiced members of the sports community would like to dismiss or laugh off this figure as a paltry and insignificant number.  It is tempting to look at the table and dismiss the average as a lie, since the Sounders' figures surely skew the average.  So lets succumb to this notion and do just this.  Its pretty simple math to eliminate the Sounders from the MLS average, and in doing so we get 14,040, which reduces the figure by about 12.9%.

Soccer is the one truly global sport.  There are those that would like to sell hockey, basketball, and baseball as global sports, but baseball, frankly falls laughably short, hockey is almost entirely a North American and European endeavor; but basketball has some merit.  Unfortunately for us, the NBA is a monolithic entity, arrogant enough to label its champion as a "World Champion" and employing different rules than the international game.  In fact, American basketball is severely inbred, something we are seeing more and more as foreigners become established in the NBA.  The global reach and significance of international basketball competitions is a fraction of that for soccer, and while soccer boasts multiple high-level domestic leagues, the same simply cannot be said of basketball.  Nice try guys, but you don't compare to soccer globally!

So lets look at European domestic soccer leagues, and, in fact, lets go right for the top.  Europe is the richest, densest, and most accomplished soccer network on the planet; South America comes in a distant second.  Going back to our domestic league attendance table, we can see the 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 11th-most popular sports leagues in the world (by average attendance) are the top-flight divisions in Germany, England, Spain, and Italy, respectively, which also happen to be widely recognized as the top four leagues (in terms of level of play) in at least Europe, if not the World.

Let's look at averages, and in the same exercise as we performed in MLS, throw out the top club and see how that affects the numbers:

England: 35650
without ManU = 31885 or -10.6%

Italy: 25324
without AC Milan = 22388 or -11.6%

Germany: 42736
without Borussia Dortmund = 38549 or -9.8%

Spain: 28491
without Barcelona = 24769 or -13.1%

You do not have to be a mathematician or statistician to come to two obvious conclusions.  Claiming Sounders' attendance figures "unfairly" skew MLS averages is stupid, and the projected attendance for the 2010 Sounders' season will be about equal to English Premier League average attendance and exceed Spanish and Italian top-flight average attendance.

I will be the first to concede that there are a ton of contingencies to the data.  Population, wealth, number of clubs, number of games are just a few of dozens.  You cannot look at the data absolutely, although numbers tend not to lie.  Anybody familiar with statistics in sports knows this well.

I would like to address the sense of the competition for butts in seats, which is to say how can we filter the data to address the options to the sports fan.  For instance, in Italy, Turin, Milan, and Rome each had two clubs in Serie A last season, so surely that must be taken into consideration somehow, as well as the litany of lower-division clubs the fan has to choose from.  This argument is all well and good, but I hasten to point out that these are the 4 leagues that supposedly "rule the roost" in Western Europe, a region the numbers shown above compares to USA/Canada in terms of population and wealth, whereas the MLS is considered a relatively lowly and unpopular "niche sport" in North America.

But lets take a quick look, specifically in Italy and specifically at Turin, the home of historic European soccer giants Juventus and lesser-renowned Torino, a lower-level club that was relegated to Serie B (Italy's second division) this past season.
Torino: 22973
Juventus: 21329
First of all, lets take a moment to appreciate that a club relegated after the 08/09 season outdrew powerhouse Juventus.  Beyond that, the combined numbers for these two teams is about 44,000, a number which would be considered an abject failure at the NFL level.  The worst-drawing NFL team, the Oakland Raiders, drew on average 44284 fans.  Detroit, a team with a dismal recent history and playing in an economically depressed region with astonishing unemployment rates, drew an average of 49,395.  Granted, Serie A teams play 19 league home games, compared to 8 for an NFL team, but I've already established that NFL and major-college football crowd sizes alter our perception of sports attendance.

Turin is a city of 909,000 people, and an urban area of between 1.7 and 2.2 million (figures from Wikipedia) and is considered a cultural and economic hub, and as the center of the Italian automotive industry (including the headquarters of Fiat, the world's 6th largest carmaker) is one of the major industrial centers of Europe.  Turin is the 4th-largest city in Italy and 78th wealthiest city in the world by GDP (58 billion).

Seattle, on the other hand, has a municipal population of 602,000, and an urban population of between 2.7 million ( as defined by the "urban area") and 3.3 million (as defined my the "metro" area).  It is the 15th-largest metro area in the US, and in the always important TV market rankings it is 13th.  Seattle is the 24th wealthiest city in the world with a GDP of $235 billion. (Remember, its about the money.  To put the enormous wealth of the US into perspective, Seattle doesn't crack the top 10 in the US, but would rank ahead of Rome and Milan, the two wealthiest cities in Italy!)

So what does this all mean?  Now that I've bored you to death with numbers, what conclusions can we draw from this?  First of all, given the population and wealth of Western Europe, it seems a shocking amount of people are not attending soccer matches.  Also, MLS attendance is surprisingly strong, despite  its lowly stature in the sports landscape -- but also perhaps not so surprising due to the astounding wealth of the US from a global perspective.

But what about the stature of the sport, and the number of teams and matches played.   For that, lets just focus on  the 4 major western European countries discussed above.
(all figures from Wikipedia)
Germany: 82.33 million, GDP = $3.67 trillion
Italy: 60.23 million, GDP = $2.31 trillion
England: 51.45 million, GDP $2.2 trillion (note, this is for England only, not all of Britain)
Spain: 46.66 million, GDP = $1.6 trillion
totals 240.67 million, GDP = $9.78 trillion
USA/Canada: 342.58 million, GDP = $15.94 trillion

The "Big four" sports in USA/Canada are NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL, which combined are 122 teams, and across our Wikipedia sample set drew a combined 133.3 million fans over 5147 games, for an average of roughly 25,800 spectators per event (keeping in mind the "indoor" nature of NHL and NBA limits attendance compared to NFL and NBA). This is .388 by factor of population and 1 person for every $119 thousand of GDP

The "Big 4" domestic leagues consist of a combined 78 teams, drew 46.9 million fans over 1446 games, for an average of roughly 32,400 spectators per event.  This is .195 by factor of population and 1 person for every $208 thousand of GDP.

There are certainly other sports in Europe of note, including rugby, basketball, and hockey, and there are lower divisions of all the domestic soccer leagues.  It is worth noting that the second division in English soccer, the Championship, averaged 17891 fans (24 teams, 552 games) making it the 18th most popular domestic league in the world, and the 10th most popular soccer league in the world, 7th in Europe!

In USA/Canada, this also leaves out the prodigious influence of major-college football and the lesser but still significant influence of the Canadian Football League (the world's 7th-most popular domestic league by average attendance).  But we can see that Americans and Canadians absolutely love attending professional sports in their major domestic leagues, at a rate nearly double the population factor and wealth factor of Italy, Germany, England, and Spain, even given the indoor limiting nature of hockey and basketball!

Seattle is a town with and NFL team, the Seahawks, that averaged 67995 for 8 homes games for 2009 (16th of 32 in NFL), a major college football team, the Washington Huskies, that averaged 64,355 for 7 homes games, a Major League Baseball team, the Mariners, which averaged 27,105 for 81 homes games (18th of 30 in MLB), as well as reasonable, relative, attendance rates for lesser sports such as college basketball, women's professional basketball, and minor league hockey.  The loss of the NBA team, the Sonics, probably helped Sounders attendance figures, but 35,000+ a game is an impressive figure, no matter how you frame it, from a local, national, global, economic, or social perspective.

In fact, the Sounders last year became one of the top 50 soccer clubs in the world with an average of 31,203, and will probably rise up the rankings this year.  It is easy for "mainstream" pundits to dismiss, or even laugh at, the Sounders' claims, and the overall MLS attendance figures, but to buy into this cynicism is a huge mistake.  The ultimate, and only proven effective, means of fans and supporters to convey what is important, on a global scale, is butts in seats (or standing in front of seats), and in that regard, the Sounders community has spoken loudly!

An open letter to the Sounders FC front office, Alliance Council, and Supporter Groups.

I have a harder and harder time justifying my sports fandom as the years go by.  In fact, the reasons to not really care about professional or big-time sports severely outweigh the reasons to care, or at least it often seems that way.  I have many friends who couldn't care less and I find myself almost wishing I could join them.

A big part of sports fandom is nostalgia, at least to most of those who have a genuine passion for their teams.  In many cases it is the team they grew up pulling for, for whatever reason, and they still do so today.  It is a mistake to think of nostalgia as "good memories," as they are indeed just powerful memories.  Watching and enjoying sports has provided many of us with a plethora of these powerful, emotional memories, and this feeds the nostalgia which keeps it all coming.

But this isn't a treatise on what makes a fan, I would really like to leave it at the fact that there are fans, for whatever reason, and move on from there.

The Sounders, although claiming a history back to 1974 through various iterations, are in reality a brand spanking new sports entity.  They have been fortunate to immediately connect with many supporters in the region despite this dubious history, for a variety of reasons which have been explored at length over the last year, in many outlets.  But again, lets just accept that the chord has been struck, for whatever reason, and move on.

What we have here, and now in this city, with the Sounders and its Supporters, is a unique opportunity  to get things right.  The fans and supporters are the consumer of big-time and professional sports, and yet they are the most abused and overlooked party in the equation.  This is due in no small part to the fact that the fans/supporters have ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN TO THEMSELVES, and owners, commissioners, and players have been all too willing to abuse this largely unrequited love for their own personal gain.

In the American soccer community there is a stated resistance to repeat these old habits, and at the forefront of this movement is the Sounders and its Supporters.  As such, we have the opportunity to create a community in which the Supporters matter, and the club organization listens... really listens, not just pretends to listen.  The apparatus have been put into place, there is an Alliance Council, there are active and vibrant supporter groups, and there is a Front Office that PURPORTS to want to listen to the Supporters.  So lets do this!

I have long envisioned the "club membership" model in American professional sports.  (I would like to see public ownership, but this may be a pipe dream, so this is certainly the next best thing.)  I would like to see "club members," or season ticket holders be treated as true SHAREHOLDERS in the interest of the club.  Again, the nominal apparatus are in place for this to happen with the Sounders, so let's make this happen!  Let's not put up with the same old excuses, the tired obfuscation from alleged "businessmen" who tend to hold too much sway within sporting organizations.

I am encouraged with what I have seen in my first year as a Sounders FC Supporter, but I am also struck that we are only part-way there.  This will be a process that may take a few years... in fact, in my efforts this season, i always had it in my head that this is all "Project 2011" giving us all 2 solid years to get our shit together and become one of the great sporting clubs on the planet.  (Beyond that, 2011 will be rocking when Vancouver and Portland join in!  Let's give them something the Really be jealous of!)

Seattle is a town of innovators, and has been for an entire century.  we revolutionized air travel, computers, and coffee, just to name a few.  Now, lets revolutionize sports fandom in America!