I married into a ketchup family 30 years ago, and though I’ve raised six ketchup-loving children, some of them like mustard as well. So as the leader of a successful multi-condiment family, I think I’m well-qualified to take up this challenge.

I could easily live without ketchup, but I have always loved mustard — its bite and sassiness, its lack of sweetness, and, quite frankly, its low, low price. When you buy ketchup it’ll set you back at least 2 bucks, but not so my little yellow-bottled bargain. You may even get change from your “Where’s George” bill if there’s a sale on.

More importantly, it has NO calories. That’s right. None. Squeeze to your heart’s content, folks. If you can take the zing, it will deliver it fat and calorie-free. Mustard stains come out easier than ketchup too. Trust me. Plus, mustard has a happy color — the same as the little smiley face. As a matter of fact, the first smiley face may have been made out of mustard! Ketchup, however, is the color of death, and has been used to simulate BLOOD in low budget B-movies. Another plus of mustard is that it won’t kill you if you leave it out in the sun all day at a picnic. Ketchup goes rancid and mayo can fill an emergency room, but it’s just plain hard to kill mustard. I’ve seen bottles last a whole year.

This leads me to its crowning point — versatility. Ketchup comes in one form, sickly sweet red (except those weird colors that packed the Dollar Store shelves a few years ago — what was that, Heinz?). Mustard, on the other hand, can be bold, tart, spicy or sweet, to suit whatever strikes your fancy, and it comes in yellow, brown, spicy, spicy brown, horseradish, German, Dijon, and honey (which even my ketchup-loving husband loves!). It works on and in hot dogs, chicken, sausages, burgers, egg salad, grilled cheese, salad dressing, wings, deviled eggs, and especially chili (it’s the secret ingredient in mine!) — to name just a few.

In conclusion, I’ll point out that mustard (seed) is the only condiment mentioned in the Bible, while ketchup has barely recovered from its 1980s scandal, when President Reagan declared it to be a “vegetable.” Ketchup is made from tomatoes, which in their overripe state are mainly used to attack bad entertainment: those B movies, NASCAR, or anything with Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton in it.

Face it, rotten tomatoes just cannot compete with mountain-moving taste, even when those tomatoes are aimed at filthy rich drama queen divas. Now please vote for me and admit that as good as ketchup is, it’s just too one-dimensional. It cannot cut the mustard.

Mustard? Please. Ketchup is king of the condiments. Always has been, always will be. Well, except for during biblical times. We’ve come a long way.

First, we’ll deal with the mustard issue. My main problem with most of mustard’s “strong suits” is that I just don’t like mustard’s flavor, to the point where not using any condiments at all would make even more sense than preferring mustard.

If I wanted to save money, I wouldn’t buy ketchup or mustard. If I were incredibly desperate to save calories, neither would end up on my lean turkey dog. (Incidentally, according to the USDA National Nutrient Database, some prepared mustard actually has 3 calories in every packet to ketchup’s 6. Not quite calorie-free; be wary, dieters!)

Also, while we’re pretending that we eat condiments for nutrition, ketchup has a bunch more potassium, vitamin A and vitamin C than mustard does.

Don’t even get me started on lycopene.

I also want to address the issue of ketchup’s lack of variety. A fine point, but only if you are able to improve on perfection. Mustard simply isn’t appealing enough in only one form, so it has several varieties in a desperate attempt to appeal to SOMEONE.

Ketchup, on the other hand, is just fine as is; you take it as it comes to you and don’t have to ruin it by adding honey or extra spice to it.

The bottom line is, ketchup is simply delicious.

This clash is totally a matter of opinion, but I submit to hypothesis that, generally, when one looks for a condiment, they aren’t overly concerned with price, calorie content (mayonnaise, anyone?), which one has more varieties, or which has better real-world connotations (mad props, though, to my man Ronald Reagan for declaring it a vegetable; try getting anyone to do that with mustard!).

You look for deliciousness, an arena in which ketchup simply can’t be beat. It’s welcome on my food anytime.

I’ve got nothing against fantasy football; I’m sure it can be very engaging. However, I’m a person who likes to keep fantasy truly fantastic. If I didn’t have to be who I am right now, is participating in American football in any way, even at the uppermost echelons, really my ideal? Almost certainly not.

On the other hand, if I could choose to be someone else, would being the emperor of an empire spanning several galaxies be my top choice? Quite possibly, especially if I didn’t have to deal with those nasty coups and uprisings that have plagued empires since their development.

Enter the fantastic world of Ogame.

I don’t think I would enjoy fantasy football very much because I imagine it takes a good deal of prior knowledge and statistical research to be successful, yet much of what determines your team’s success is out of your control. On the other hand, Ogame throws some chance elements your way (the actions of other players), but there is nearly always something you can do to protect yourself, or at least get them back pretty well.

You can never actually lose in the sense of being forced to quit, so a season of hard work is unlikely to come to nothing after a large attack. Finally, Ogame is very quick to pick up; all you have to know is how to tell time. In short, Ogame puts you in almost complete control of your own destiny, and with good strategy, you can reap the rewards of your success or suffer the consequences of your failings, learn from it all, and rebuild.

In a text article, I can’t give anyone a good sense of what Ogame is really like. I will say, however, that the best reason to play is the friendships you can make. Recently I was in an alliance with people from the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Lebanon, and while we don’t talk to each other that often, it’s satisfying to know that, because of one silly browser-based game, I now have at least a few friends in countries all over the world.

I wish I could explain it more thoroughly, but my fleets have just delivered resources to a planet of mine, so I’ll see you later.

I just got finished with my fantasy football draft. It’s one of the more polarizing events of the year, as those who take part in such things eagerly exchange strategy and war stories, and those who do not look at the others as though they’re crazy, or the world’s biggest losers, or both.

For those of you who began shaking your head the moment you read the title of this clash (yet for some reason are still reading) let me explain why fantasy football is one of the greatest leisure activities known to man. For sports fans, it’s absolutely indispensable. You’re going to watch the games anyway, so you might as well have a rooting interest, especially for games late in the season when your favorite team is languishing.

Not to mention, every sports fan has always wanted to be a general manager. As we watch the personnel decisions made by real teams, we love to criticize and postulate that we could do better. Well here’s the chance to prove it! Not against actual general managers, sure, but against your friends.

And that’s why fantasy football can appeal even to those who aren’t big sports fans. Everyone loves the chance to gain bragging rights over their friends, be it for a victorious season or just fleecing them in a trade.

The biggest reason to love fantasy football in the internet age is the chance to stay connected with those friends. During our draft, I had phone conversations with my former roommate, my uncle, my brother, a childhood friend and my dad, all decidedly out of town but completely connected through the league. I actually had a conference call with the latter three, a conversational combination unseen since my brother’s wedding.

Listen, I’d love to tell you more, but I’m off to propose a trade.

It’s good to be the king.

The Tyrant King of the Lizards, that is.

T. rex is the epitome of dinosaur. Weighing four to six tons, 40 feet long, 20 feet tall, and with a four-foot jaw filled with razor-sharp teeth upwards of 12 inches, T. rex was not built for play dates. He was a killing machine that ate meat.

The image of dinosaur conjured up in every mind is of an enormous Tyrannosaurus, standing over the body of a lame dinosaur like a Triceratops, Stegosaurus, or an Apatosaurus, roaring in delight. Oh, I’m sorry, did I say Apatosaurus? Perhaps I meant Brontosaurus.

While the incorrectly named Brontosaurus would passively graze, staring around with its vacant, cow-like eyes and walnut-sized brain, Tyrannosaurus stalked the primordial jungles of Laurasia, with a brain over twice the size of herbivorous dinos. That’s right, Laurasia, or present-day America. If America were a dinosaur, it would totally be T. rex.

Broadly speaking, the only lame thing about the T. rex is the disproportionate size of its teeny forearms. But recent discoveries show that the arms, while small, were incredibly muscular, designed to hold its prey in place while it was devoured.

So who’s it going to be? The Tyrant Lizard King, with his gigantic brain, or the dim-witted, hopelessly lame, salad-eating “thunder lizard”?

Today is “July 4th Eve,” the day before we celebrate the birth of our wonderful nation. The story involves a small group of poorly-armed militiamen successfully fighting off the forces of a terrible king and rising to become a mighty colossus. It would be nigh on sacrilegious if, on today of all days, the readers of Bweinh! selected a tyrant as their favorite dinosaur.

Once you get past the hype surrounding the T-Rex, what is it? For what does it use its kingship over the other dinosaurs? According to Calvin and Hobbes (a reliable source if there ever was one), T-Rex was either a fearsome predator or a loathsome scavenger. Regardless of Calvin’s answer, we should be unwilling, as Americans or Christians, to accept a dinosaur fitting either description as our favorite. There are better paths than predator or scavenger.

Enter the brontosaurus. Simple- minded and simple-living? Probably. Defenseless? Hardly. Strength has always been a prerequisite to peace and the brontosaurus is built to last. No teeth or claws to speak of: just pure size and a willingness to group together with others when necessary. Its name means “thunder lizard,” and it is indeed mighty, a force of nature — at least 23 metric tons to the T-Rex’s 6.8.

With this in mind, the brontosaurus now seems more like the mighty United States (its fossils have also been found here). And the T-Rex is placed squarely with the North Koreas and Irans of the world: noisy and fussed over for weaponry, but in the end unable to match the sheer size and power of its mighty adversary in a fair fight.

Do not reject America’s proud heritage of reluctant heroism and unmatched power in exchange for tyranny and a set of shiny teeth.

Hopefully, with every Clash I submit, it becomes increasingly obvious that I’m a staunch moderate on most issues. Gun control is no exception.

First of all, many who oppose gun control would cite the “liberty” argument: our Constitution is special tells the government things it may not do, then reserves further rights to the people. Among the rights protected by the Constitution is the right to bear arms, presumably with the goal of protecting our ability to rise up and throw off the chains of oppression if the government evolves into a second reign of King George III. This is certainly an important point, but I harbor no illusions about my ability to protect myself with any amount of personal firepower if the officers of the United States military decide they want to turn the country into their own private hunting grounds.

My primary disagreement with gun control stems from my practicality and my willingness to accept the assumption that criminals can get guns if they want them. As the world becomes more globalized (which is not redundant, if you think about it), I believe that this assumption becomes increasingly true. The short version of my line of thought goes a little something like this: we can’t stop criminals from getting guns and bringing them to a variety of places, but criminals don’t generally want to die (or be injured) in the process of committing a crime.

Therefore, we should increase risks to criminals to the point at which, even though guns can be obtained quickly and easily, there is not an incredible amount of benefit to obtaining them. We can do this by increasing the police force, which is ideal for certain types of people (generally the people who could wind up on either side of the criminal-victim equation), but carries inefficiently high costs for stable people who are very, very unlikely to become criminals. For these, guns are a low-cost protection solution.

Of course, tests are needed to determine who should carry guns; it is here that my moderate side shines through and forces me to concede that there should be standards about who can carry guns. If the requirements start getting too strict and Orwellian, I suspect an average citizen would be more likely to buy an illicit gun anyway, and a revolutionary scenario would play out.

However, once a person meets these standards, most types of non-military weapon should be available to him or her, and they should be able to carry guns virtually anywhere. Think about it: where do massacres happen? The ones that have captured media attention in recent years have happened mostly in schools, where students, teachers and faculty have no means by which to defend themselves, so one gun sneaking in can be deadly.

Young people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns until they prove themselves responsible, but imagine the number of school massacres that might have played out differently if just one principal or faculty member had carried a gun to school on the day of the massacre.

Are mutually assured destruction scenarios like this unnerving? You bet. Unfortunately, for the moment it appears that the “no guns” and “no guns of a certain type” options are not available to us, and in a world of limited choices, the next-best option is for many generally rational people to have guns wherever it could potentially save lives.

Past School Shootings

Feb. 2, 1996, Moses Lake, WA — 2 students and 1 teacher killed, 1 wounded.

Feb. 19, 1997, Bethel, AK — Principal and 1 student killed, 2 wounded

Oct. 1, 1997, Pearl, MS — 2 students killed, 7 wounded

Dec. 1, 1997, West Paducah, KY — 3 students killed, 5 wounded

Dec. 15, 1997, Stamps, AR — 2 students wounded.

March 24, 1998, Jonesboro, AR — 4 students and 1 teacher killed, 10 wounded

April 24, 1998, Edinboro, PA — 1 teacher killed, 2 students wounded

May 19, 1998, Fayetteville, TN — 1 student killed

May 21, 1998, Springfield, OR — 2 students killed, 22 wounded

June 15, 1998, Richmond, VA — 1 teacher and 1 guidance counselor wounded

April 20, 1999, Littleton, CO — 14 students and 1 teacher killed, 23 wounded

May 20, 1999, Conyers, GA — 6 students injured

Nov. 19, 1999, Deming, NM — 1 student killed

Dec. 6, 1999, Fort Gibson, Okla. — 4 students wounded

Feb. 29, 2000, Mount Morris Township, MI — 1 killed (shooter and victim both 6 years old)

March 10, 2000, Savannah, GA — 2 students killed

May 26, 2000, Lake Worth, FL — 1 teacher killed

Sept. 26, 2000, New Orleans, LA — 2 students wounded

Jan. 17, 2001, Baltimore, MD — 1 student killed

March 5, 2001, Santee, CA — 2 killed, 13 wounded

March 7, 2001, Williamsport, PA — 1 wounded

March 22, 2001, Granite Hills, CA — 1 teacher and 3 students wounded.

March 30, 2001, Gary, IN — 1 student killed

Nov. 12, 2001, Caro, MI — 1 student killed

Jan. 15, 2002, New York, NY — 2 students wounded

October 28, 2002, Tucson, AZ — 4 killed

April 14, 2003, New Orleans, LA — 1 killed, 3 wounded

April 24, 2003, Red Lion, PA — 2 killed

Sept. 24, 2003, Cold Spring, MN — 2 students killed

March 21, 2005, Red Lake, MN — 10 killed

Nov. 8, 2005, Jacksboro, TN — 1 killed, 2 wounded

Aug. 24, 2006, Essex, VT — 3 killed

Sept. 26, 2006, Bailey, CO — 2 killed

Sept. 29, 2006, Cazenovia, WI — 1 killed

Oct. 3, 2006, Nickel Mines, PA — 6 killed, 5 wounded

Jan. 3, 2007, Tacoma, WA — 1 killed

April 16, 2007, Blacksburg, VA — 33 killed, 15 wounded

This list came from here and was amended to eliminate all but the number of casualties, and to remove all incidents outside the United States.

Those of you who know me as being perhaps on the theologically liberal end of the spectrum of Bweinh!tributors may be surprised to find out that I am essentially politically conservative.

This is something that has developed in recent years, probably as I have grown older and responsible for running a household with my wife Jill. During our first year of marriage especially, we were not making much money. “How are we going to pay for it?” became a consistent refrain — when thinking of buying a car, new furniture or even a pizza for dinner.

So while I hear and am genuinely moved by pleas for universal health care or raising the minimum wage, the question still pops up: “How are we going to pay for it?” Eventually, the answer comes to me: “You are . . . you and the rest of the tax base.” And while I ought to be ready and generous to give to worthy causes, I would just as soon not take the US government’s word for it in deciding what a worthy cause is.

Just on the off chance that the US government decided something immoral was a worthy cause (perish the thought!), I would rather not have the mechanism already in place to force me to pay for it. We need the government to protect citizens from trampling each others’ rights; we don’t need a government determining right and wrong for individuals when that behavior has no impact on the lives of others.

It is the same sort of logic that informs my position that marijuana should be legalized. I’ve never used marijuana; and not like Bill Clinton never used marijuana either. I’ve never used it, period. And I can’t imagine why someone would. But you know what? The threat posed to society at large by marijuana usage is minimal at most. It poses no undue risk to the general populace; it does not rob anyone else of their rights. Marijuana does not threaten to kill or injure anyone besides the user. And if people want to do things harmful to themselves, tobacco is already legal and shows no signs of becoming illegal.

As far as I can see, the main reason for keeping marijuana illegal is that our government wants to send a message that it is abhorrent and dangerous behavior. I don’t condone marijuana usage. But neither do I want our government exploiting its power to determine what is abhorrent and dangerous. Remember, orthodox Christianity isn’t always pretty in the eyes of our government either, but it’s protected belief and behavior . . . for now.

I guess I’m counted among the social conservatives of the world. Jonah Goldberg once described social conservatism (to me and my peers at SLU) as erring on the side of keeping things the same when change is proposed. He illustrated his point vividly — during the 1960’s, a significant number of hippie communes began suffering from terrible diseases no American doctor had ever seen. To make a long story short, it turns out the age-old traditions of bathing and personal hygiene were not just “the man’s” hang-ups after all.

People are good judges of what is beneficial for them often enough that most decisions are safe in their hands; personal choice is one of the greatest tenets underlying philosophical liberalism and democracy. However, these also generally assume people are self-interested, and what’s good for me is not always good for you. Sometimes I can even be fooled into making a decision that’s good for me in the short run, but hurts in the long run. It’s a real shame that we don’t have a natural experiment to show what happens if otherwise responsible adults spend too much on expensive, addictive habits and not enough on their health, family, education, etc.

But of course, we do. We could examine the effects of cigarettes, which cause cancer and eat up resources that could be used more productively. However, aside from addictiveness, tobacco does not have many of marijuana’s characteristics (no mind- altering experience, man!), so it’s probably better to compare marijuana to alcohol, a much more sobering comparison (pardon the pun). Both drugs produce an altered state of mind and can transform you into someone that you are not. Legalizing marijuana doesn’t just put it into the hands of homesick Europeans and responsible folks like you and me. It could also put psychoactive drugs into the hands of a welfare recipient who should be out looking for work or caring for his/her children, or a person getting behind the wheel of a car. Granted, there are still DUI/DWI laws, but think about what an unbridled success those have been and you’ll understand my desire to keep pot illegal. Such regulations barely deter anyway; few believe the risk of getting caught is significant.

Finally, though I may be guilty of employing the slippery slope fallacy, it’s not a particularly good argument for legalizing marijuana. Why make anything illegal at all if the government cannot make moral judgments? Even protecting me from my neighbor implies my life is worth more than what’s spent on protection. Like most arguments, the argument about legalizing marijuana comes down to a matter of degree — to what degree will we let the government determine what Americans shouldn’t put into their bodies? I have no disdain for people who draw the line elsewhere, nor do they lack in morals, but I sincerely believe some people are not responsible enough to limit their detrimental behavior, so marijuana should remain illegal.

I’m not a huge fan of Wal*Mart. When I go there, it’s crowded, I often can’t find what I’m looking for, and customer service is subpar. Their business practices aren’t beyond reproach either. But for all their failings, Wal*Mart is a very good thing for America and many, many people. The arguments in favor of Wal*Mart are straightforward: the corporation makes a great deal of money for its shareholders, while employing many and providing consumer goods at rock-bottom prices to those who may not otherwise be able to afford them. But do these benefits offset Wal*Mart’s drawbacks?

The first common criticism is that Wal*Mart shuts down small businesses. Most of the evidence of this phenomenon is anecdotal at best, but even if it really is significant, I question its importance. Most people choose to buy at Wal*Mart because of the prices, and because they see (rightfully so!) that there is nothing inherently more valuable or moral about a local sole proprietorship compared to a global corporation.

But don’t Wal*Mart’s employees have a right to unionize or get health insurance through their employer? At most other firms, the answer is a resounding “No!” Most low-wage service jobs, regardless of source, are unlikely to merit affordable health insurance or company-blessed unionization. Wal*Mart provides employees and stockholders with a choice, and the fact that people keep choosing Wal*Mart proves it’s better than some of the alternatives.

Finally, what about global sweatshop labor? Even here a choice is involved. Globalized agribusiness has made traditional farming unprofitable for many, and after a community is thus devastated, Wal*Mart enters it with promises of a reliable wage. Who wouldn’t jump at the chance? It’s a terrible situation, but it’s hard to say Wal*Mart is morally reprehensible; at worst, they are opportunistic, profiting from the evil globalization has wrought for many indigenous farmers.

Wal*Mart is simply an organization that’s taken the rules they’ve been given and followed them well; they’re on top because they’ve got a good formula. They should not be penalized or demonized, but rewarded as the system demands — if we want to change the rules by which Wal*Mart plays, it must spring from us (consumers and workers), not from inside corporate administration itself.

Can you live on $6 an hour? In a 35-hour job (since most jobs that pay that much don’t allow for anything more than part-time), you would make just under $11,000 before taxes, FICA, Worker’s Comp and health insurance. Before rent, the electricity bill, gas prices or bus fare. Before daycare, the daughter’s new shoes, and the son’s asthma medicine.

One of the strongest arguments for Wal*Mart is that it creates jobs, thus boosting the economy of an area. It’s true, Wal*Mart boasts 1 million workers nationwide. However, Wal*Mart’s wages are only enough to sustain teenagers and college students.

The most pessimistic wage for a regular Wal*Mart employee is $8700 a year; the most optimistic is $15,600 net pay, with no vacation time whatsoever. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2004 that “the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2003 was $18,810; for a family of three, $14,680; for a family of two, $12,015; and for unrelated individuals, $9,393.”

Let’s be realistic. Who needs the jobs in the economically depressed areas Wal*Mart is fabled to help? Not teenagers and college students, but those with families, or the people over 25 trying to support themselves. Have you, assuming you are a single twentysomething, tried to live on $12,000 (my own calculated mean Wal*Mart salary) before expenses?

Let’s say you have a child, since it’s safe to assume some percentage of twenty-somethings working at Wal*Mart have at least one. You’re at the poverty line. Let’s say you have a bum boyfriend or girlfriend. Now you’ve made it under by a good $2,500. So what are you going to do when you can’t pay the bills or feed the kids?

You’re going to go on welfare, and welfare is paid for by everyone else’s taxes. Since you can’t afford Wal*Mart’s health care plan, which is only catastrophic coverage (and you’d be paying 35% of it anyway), you won’t be covered. If you’re over 19 and under 65, you will not be on state-provided health insurance either. You’ll just have to get sick and get over it, or let creditors ruin your credit and the hospital absorb the loss. Your one or two previously mentioned children will receive the school’s insurance, which is once again paid for by taxes.

But let’s not forget the core of the argument. Wal*Mart ‘helps’ the economy.