Giving you plenty of reasons to dislike Kansas City

It's hard to hate Kansas City.

That's a problem for San Francisco 49ers fans today as their team prepares to meet the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LIV, in Miami. Because hatred is crucial in sports.

Sports fans are most comfortable when there's something to really dislike about the opponent. Sometimes, it's an opposing player (LeBron James is a prima donna! Tom Brady is a cheater! Bryce Harper is a pretty boy!), sometimes it's a history of a franchise (The Dodgers are too Hollywood! The Cowboys think they're "America's Team!" The Celtics are on TV too much!), sometimes it's the town (Miami fans are front-runners! New York fans think they live in the center of the universe! Utah Jazz fans live in Salt Lake City!).

We want something to root against a team as much as we want to support one.

It's hard to hate Kansas City.

The Chiefs biggest star is quarterback Patrick Mahomes, who is likable and fun to watch. The franchise is historically good, but hasn't won a championship in 50 years. Kansas City is perhaps America's most neutral big city (what do you think of when  you think of Kansas City: That big arch? It's in St. Louis).

There's not much to hate.

Perhaps 49ers fans could borrow some passion from Oakland Raiders fans, who consider Kansas City one of three cities (the other two being Denver and San Diego/Los Angeles) worthy of disdain, due to longtime rivalries. (Of course, they equally hate the 49ers, which means today is their worst nightmare.)

What should a self-respecting 49ers fan do today? Support the 49ers, of course, but what other fuel is there? Well, I have five things to motivate you. Here are five things to dislike about Kansas City.

5.  Kansas City is the old fling. OK, so this is a reach, but bear with me. The NBA's Cincinnati Royals moved to Kansas City and became the Kings in 1972, but lasted just 13 years before finally moving to Sacramento. If you like the Sacramento Kings, then Kansas City is your team's former boyfriend (or girlfriend). You shouldn't like Kansas City. The city treated your team poorly.

4. Kansas City is the new fling. The history of 49ers quarterbacks going to Kansas City is substantial. Joe Montana, Steve Bono and Alex Smith all turned to the Chiefs for comfort after the 49ers rejected them (this is a parallel to the Kings situation, but in reverse.

The list also includes Steve DeBerg and Elvis Grbac, by the way). Kansas City is the new boyfriend. Kansas City races in to get our former flames while they're on the rebound. Pathetic.

3. Needless confusion. Kansas City, Kansas, has nearly 150,000 residents. Kansas City, Missouri, has nearly 500,000 people and is east of Kansas City, Kansas. Seriously. Two cities with the same name next to each other. The Chiefs play in Missouri. It's Kansas City, but it's in Missouri. That's like having a Nevada City in California! (Tries to delete that last statement after remembering there is a Nevada City).

2. The dumb tomahawk chop. Remember the Atlanta Braves' tomahawk chop? Well, they do it in Kansas City, too. Enough said.

1. The Chiefs are from there. They are the 49ers opponent in the Super Bowl! They are the Raiders' rival! Of course you don't like Kansas City!

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Bananageddon brings the Cavendish crisis home

Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico in September 2017. It was the worst natural disaster to hit the island in recorded history, killing nearly 3,000 people and causing more than $90 billion in damage.

It was all over the news. Like many people, I felt badly about it and wondered about the response of our federal government.

Two months later, my insulin pump broke. I called the manufacturing company and asked how long it would be until I could get a replacement. I expected them to say a day or two.

"I don't know," the operator said. "Our pumps are manufactured in Puerto Rico, so they're all off-line."

What?

Suddenly, I cared deeply about Puerto Rico. We must save Puerto Rico! We must put as many boots on the ground to restore Puerto Rico! Puerto Rico's economy – especially the insulin-pump-manufacturing sector – must be allowed to recover! This is taking way too long!

I'm not proud of myself. It was selfish: When there was a disaster in Puerto Rico, it was sad. When it affected me, it became a crisis.

The same is true of  the strain of fungus called Tropical Race Four.

Oh, Tropical Race Four is a blight and it could affect crops in other parts of the world. That's terrible. I  hope they find a way to control it, like they always do. I hope nothing bad really happens.

It's bad news, but it's contained. It's Tropical Race Four (which I initially presumed was the fourth running of some marathon through the rain forest) and it's bad.

But then . . . Tropical Race Four has spread to China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Jordan, Mozambique, India and more. No big deal unless you like bananas.

Bananas?

Yes. Bananas.

This is a catastrophe! We must save the banana!

Tropical Race Four is causing a zombie apocalypse for Cavendish bananas –  the type of bananas that most of us have eaten all of our lives. When you read the word "banana," you picture a Cavendish, because that's all we've known.

Now it faces extinction.

Tropical Race Four was a distant agricultural problem for decades. Americans get 90 percent of our bananas from Latin America, which was free of Tropic Race Four, so it was sad but it affected other people.

Last summer, the fungus arrived in Columbia. It spreads fast and the results will be catastrophic. Bananas are crucial to the economy of Central America, but to most Americans, the bigger disaster will be an increase in price for bananas and the ultimate disappearance of "normal" bananas from our supermarkets.

We probably should have reacted sooner. When Big Banana (the banana industry) began to exclusively produce Cavendish bananas in the 1950s, we should have insisted on diversity. When Tropical Race Four hit China and the Philippines, we should have attacked it.

Instead, we waited. Like my insulin pump, we didn't react to the disaster until it directly affected us.

I didn't get a new insulin pump for a full month and I was aware of Puerto Rico's problems every day during that period. Two years have passed, the island is again struggling and my reaction is similar to what it was before my pump broke. It's sad. But it's not my focus. My pump works.

I recognize that it's selfish. But what am I supposed to do?

I'm using up my energy worrying about the Cavendish banana crisis!

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Survey of men and makeup makes me uncomfortable

Live and let live, I say.

To each his own, I tell people.

Don't worry about what others think. You be you, I insist.

Then I read that a survey showed that one-third of young men would consider wearing makeup.

And I gasped.

A hypocrite? Probably. A victim of my time? Likely.

But . . .

What. The. Heck?

One-third of men would wear MAKEUP?

The study is real. Morning Consult, a market research company, conducted a study last fall of more than 2,000 men. Among those aged 18-29, 33 percent said they would consider wearing makeup. Among those aged 30-44, 30 percent said they would consider wearing makeup.

In other words, about one-third of adult men 44 and younger would consider wearing makeup.

Among the men who live at my house (me), zero percent would consider wearing makeup. At least in the way I think of makeup.

When I see "33 percent of young men would consider wearing makeup," I think of a 25-year-old wearing rouge, eyeliner and lipstick. You know, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in "Some Like it Hot." You know, Tom Hanks in "Bosom Buddies."

You know, ancient pop culture references that are probably offensive in 2020.

A couple of thoughts on my first reaction.

First of all, if that's what you want to do, more power to you. (See first paragraph of this column.)

Secondly, I have a hard time thinking one-third of men in that age group want to look like that, especially since my studies indicate that about 80 percent of them have stubbly five-o'clock-shadow beards, which would pretty much make the rouge not work.

I know – or presume – that this statistic isn't about wearing flashy makeup. When a 25-year-old who works at a startup while driving an Uber to help pay for his expensive coffee and super-modern apartment (my stereotype of who answered this survey) says he would consider wearing makeup, he's probably talking about some product that I don't know exists. Something to make his beard stand out or to hide that untimely pimple.

Or something I already use, but don't consider makeup.

Right? Because when I think about my view of what types of products young men should wear, I realize some of my choices probably stunned my dad.

Hair products (mousse, in my case)? Why not just use some Brylcreem?

Shaving and not splashing on a generous amount of Old Spice? Ridiculous. Your skin will fall off!

So recognize this: My reaction to the statistics (again: About one-third of men 44 and younger say they'd consider wearing makeup) is made out of emotion, not logic.

Live and let live.

Do what you want to do.

Be you.

If you want to wear a skin moisturizing product or something to cover up blemishes (which actually is part of what this survey asked), go ahead.

BUT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WHEN A SURVEY-TAKER ASKS IF YOU'D CONSIDER WEARING MAKEUP, SAY NO.

There.

I'm not so uncomfortable with someone wearing makeup as I am with them saying they will wear makeup, which I realize is part of the problem with a society that makes people hide who they are.

If it makes you uncomfortable that someone doesn't like young men talking about wearing makeup, you've got company: Me. And I'm the one saying it.

Humans are complex. A generation from now, no one will believe that someone felt the way I feel. People will dig up the Daily Republic archive and use this column as representative of how people born in the mid-20th century were dinosaurs.

They're right.

But we're dinosaurs who didn't admit we would wear makeup.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

My four options to rescue the Super Bowl halftime show

Super Bowl Sunday is just three weeks away, but it's not too late to make a change.

Not in the date or teams.

Not in the television network or that clever themed party you planned.

What needs a change is the halftime show. Not just for this year, but forever.

The Super Bowl halftime show is a tired act and even worse, it's a tired joke: What geriatric act will they trot out this year?

In 2020, by the way, that "geriatric act" is 50-year-old Jennifer Lopez and 43-year-old Shakira (Super Bowl Sunday is her birthday!). Neither is as old as The Who (2010 Super Bowl) or The Rolling Stones (2006), but still.

There's been an effort in recent years to make the halftime show less senior-focused–Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake and Maroon 5 headlined the past three Super Bowls–but then another problem arises: The performance is less than 15 minutes, so it's not really even a concert. It's a medley. Nobody is really happy with it.

It's time to make a change.

I know what you're thinking: What could the NFL possibly do at halftime to keep the audience entertained – and bring in non-football fans – beyond music?

I have four suggestions.

Jump. Fifty years ago, Evel Knievel was one of the most famous people in America, because he routinely jumped his motorcycle over 25 cars or 18 buses or 12 RVs. He did it in stadiums (or at Caesar's Palace), which suggests the same could be done at halftime–the game is played in a stadium. Would you watch the Super Bowl halftime show if you knew someone would try to jump their motorcycle (or scooter or car) over a random number of items in a way that could result in glory or catastrophe? I would.

Tightrope. If watching a motorcycle jump isn't your thing, what if someone (perhaps whatever member of the Wallenda family is still alive) walked a tightrope from one side of the stadium to the other? Seriously. Have them walk the tightrope, hundreds of feet above the field. I would 100 percent watch that.

"Wipeout." This is unlikely, since ABC doesn't broadcast Super Bowls (this year's game is on Fox), but I would definitely tune in for a reprise of the silly game show that aired on ABC until 2014. "Wipeout" featured regular people navigating crazy obstacle courses that resulted in violent crashes that were replayed in super slow motion. The target audience appeared was 8-year-old boys and me, so I'd definitely tune in for an annual "Wipeout" reprise–maybe involving players whose teams lost in the conference championship games.

Random competition. If "Wipeout" can't be brought back, how about a high-stakes carnival-game competition? Periodically, there have been competitions (throw a football at a target! Run an obstacle course! Find a hidden diamond!) during sports events, with a big payoff for the winner–often a scholarship to a college student. What if the NFL promised $5 million to the first person to kick a 40-yard field goal, with the competitors drawn from the Super Bowl audience? I'd watch.

The Super Bowl will again be the most-watched program of the year. It's not too late to change the halftime show and prevent more disappointment. Heck, if it makes it easier, I'm OK with Jennifer Lopez and Shakira being contestants in "Wipeout."

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Ancient chewing gum gives glimpse of early life, Gladys

One thing we know for sure: Gladys chewed gum.

My guess is that she chewed it aggressively, giving side-eye glances and issuing insults to the hapless man who was supposed to hunt while she was gathering. Thor always let her down and she was sassy enough to insult him about it.

True? We're not sure, but that's one possible outcome after archaeologists extracted a human genome out of 5,700-year-old chewing gum found in Denmark.

Yes. The chewing gum was 5,700 years old, which means the person chewing it was around even before Tom Brady began his NFL career.

The results of the DNA tests were published in Nature Communications and revealed a lot more about the woman (I call her Gladys) chewing it than you would expect from a single piece of gum. In fact, researchers constructed an entire human genome, the first genome to come out of something other than bones or teeth. (In the interest of transparency, I considered buying a Hyundai Genome in 1988 before settling on another model.)

The research team, led by Hannes Schroeder, a paleogeneticist at the University of Copenhagen, concluded that the woman (Gladys) had dark hair, dark skin and blue eyes. The fact that she was chewing gum also suggests (my opinion) that she was spunky, like Flo in the 1970s sitcom "Alice" (or myriad other spunky TV and movie characters who chew gum aggressively).

Researches found traces of what may have been Gladys' last meal (duck and hazelnuts) as well as discovering that she had traces of Epstein-Barr virus, which can cause malaria and probably contributed to the exasperation she must have felt when her man, who I'll call Thor, returned empty-handed after a day of hunting in my imagined scenario.

"I've been gathering all day," she presumably said, perhaps using a series of hand gestures and grunts while chomping her gum. "You and your pals were just out screwing around. Again."

"Oh yeah?" Thor would say. "We invented this." And then he held up the very first pair of scissors.

"Oh, real cutting-edge technology," Gladys presumably said, chomping the gum and looking at a prehistoric studio audience, who roared with laughter.

"Sorry for the low-brow humor," she'd add, raising her sunken eyebrows at the audience, who adored her spunk.

Of course, that's all speculation, not included in the report. But Gladys was chewing gum, so it's logical, right?

The biggest question about this discovery is this: Ancient people had chewing gum?

According to an article about the discovery by NPR, Schroeder said the gum was a black-brown substance, known as birch pitch, which "was obtained by heating birch bark." NPR quoted Schroeder as saying it wasn't clear why the ancients chewed the pitch, but it was likely to soften it up before using it as a kind of glue to stick sharp points onto weapons or tools. Schroeder said the people may have even used it for medicinal purposes, such as a pain remedy for toothaches, because it is a mild antiseptic.

The more likely reason, though, is that Gladys was a spunky, opinionated woman who didn't really care what Thor and the others thought of her. She voiced her opinions while chomping the gum. People loved her!

Isn't science amazing? Because of this discovery – and my groundless speculation – we know that ancient people were just like characters on situation comedies.

Science again shows that we haven't really changed.

Thank goodness for spunky Gladys!

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Wrapping up a decade of mean-spiritedness

The most important development of the decade that ends this week wasn't the election or impeachment of Donald Trump.

It wasn't the Giants winning three World Series titles.

It wasn't climate change or technological advances or the coming of age of the millennial generation.

The most important development of the concluding decade was that we got meaner.

That's it.

If you compare the world of 2010 to the world of 2020, the Earth – or at least America – is a meaner place.

We are harsher, less gracious and less civil. We have less respect for people who disagree with us or who are different from us.

I blame social media.

But not really, because social media is just the delivery method for our meanness.

I actually love social media. I'm active on Facebook and I visit Twitter many times every day.

But social media made us meaner. Rather than fulfilling its original promise of drawing us together as a community and creating better communication, social media turned us into warring tribes, convinced that the other side is wrong. More than that, it's convinced us that the other side is evil.

It happens in politics. It happens in sports. It happens with music. My tribe is better than your tribe. Your tribe is not only wrong, it's stupid. Or racist. Or snowflakes.

We've gotten meaner not because social media made us mean, but because social media gave us a megaphone to shout our meanness.

Social media is the delivery system for our meanness and like anything, meanness grows when it's fed.

Put it this way: Twenty (or 30 or 60 or 100) years ago, plenty of people were mean. Plenty of people held graceless views of others and made straw man arguments they could destroy to point out the idiocy of anyone who disagreed. I grew up in a world filled with people whose opinions would now be considered extreme. (Heck, most of them were extreme then.)

But those opinions were shared in their living room or in the car on the way to school or in the bar with the guy on the next stool. They were relatively private.

That wasn't perfect, but it didn't normalize meanness.

This decade, social media matured to the point where we can shout our mean views in public. We then cluster with people who agree with us and talk about how dumb or ignorant or hateful or  soft others are. We are mean. We're comfortable being mean.

I'm not sure we're any meaner in person. When we talk to a co-worker or neighbor, we probably don't drip the kind of venom that's easy to share on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter.

Here's a goal for the 2020s: Let's have more grace. Let's consider others important. Let's not assume that those who disagree with us are bad. Let's see what we have in common with others, not how others are different (and misdirected).

How? For starters, avoid angry posts on social media (block, unfriend or unfollow people who thrive on rage). Avoid others who amplify the rage. Appreciate people who are different, even while disagreeing. Fight hate with tolerance.

Thirty years ago, Don Henley's "Heart of the Matter," asked a question that seems even more relevant now: How can love survive in such a graceless age?

In the 2020s, let's help love survive. Or at least turn down the anger.

That's a worthy decade-long goal.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Time to for the annual test of your knowledge of Solano County

It's the most wonderful time of the year: Time for the annual Solano County quiz!

As has been done in this space annually since the turn of the century (!), we spend one morning a year – the final Sunday before Christmas – testing your knowledge of the county where you live.

It's the hap-happiest season of all!

The rules are simple. Each question is worth one point. Write down your answers (guesses?) and compare them to the correct* answers at the bottom. Then vow to do better next year.

* Most years, I get at least one wrong. So sue me!

And away we go . . .

QUESTIONS

1. Name the seven cities in Solano County.

2. What is the largest high school in Solano County by student population?

3. What is the largest private employer in the county, as measured by number of employees?

4. What was the largest cash crop in Solano County in 2018, the most recent year for which we have numbers? (If you get one of the top three, it's a correct guess.)

5. Who is older: Tony Wade or Kelvin Wade?

6. If you drive 1,000 miles east on Interstate 80 from Fairfield, in what state will you be?

7. Name the five counties that border Solano County.

8. Within 1,000, how many inmates are housed at the Correctional Medical Facility and California State Prison Solano combined?

9. Name at least three of the five Solano County supervisors.

10. How many interstate freeways are in Solano County?

11. Within five degrees, what is the average high temperature in Vacaville for the year?

12. What is the name of the former heavyweight kickboxing champion who attended Vacaville High School?

13. Name one of the two Solano County cities that have served as the capital of California.

14. Name the two people who represent Solano County in the House of Representatives.

15. True or false: Country music star Tim McGraw is from Vallejo.

16. Within 15,000, what was the estimated population of Solano County in 2018?

17. At 2,822 feet, what point is the highest elevation in the county?

18. Within two years, when was the Fairfield-Suisun Air Force Base renamed Travis Air Force Base?

19. Since 1932, Solano County has voted Republican in presidential elections only three times. What years were they?

20. Name the two airports in the county open to the general population.

ANSWERS

1. Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun City, Vacaville, Vallejo.

2. Armijo High School, with slightly more than 2,200 students. Vacaville High is second, with about 1,900 students.

3. Kaiser Permanente in Vallejo, with nearly 4,000 employees. That's twice as large as the runner-up (Six Flags Discovery Kingdom).

4. Nursery products, tomatoes, alfalfa.

5. Tony is older. Much older. Maybe 30 or 40 years older.

6. Wyoming. Specifically, about 20 miles east of Rawlins, Wyo.

7. Contra Costa, Sonoma, Napa, Sacramento, Yolo.

8. As of the Dec. 11 count, there were 6,939 (2,524 in CMF, 4,415 in CSPS).

9. Erin Hannigan, Monica Brown, Jim Spering, John Vasquez, Skip Thomson.

10. Four: Interstates 80, 780, 680 and 505.

11. 76 degrees.

12. Dennis Alexio.

13. Vallejo (1852-53) and Benicia (1853-54).

14. John Garamendi, Mike Thompson.

15. False. His father, former major league pitcher Tug McGraw was, though.

16. 446,610.

17. Mount Vaca.

18. April 20, 1951.

19. 1972 (Richard Nixon), 1980 (Ronald Reagan), 1984 (Ronald Reagan).

20. Nut Tree Airport (Vacaville), Rio Vista Municipal Airport.

SCORING

15 or more points:

10-14 points:

5 to 9 points:

4 or fewer points:

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Women's complaints about cold offices are right

In what will come as no surprise to most of us, women are right again.

It's cold.

For my entire work career, female co-workers have complained about the temperature in the office. Occasionally, it's too hot. Far more often, it's too cold.

Walk through offices where I've worked on any winter day – and I suspect this is true nearly everywhere in America – and you see women with jackets on or women wrapped in blankets. They'll have space heaters on and maybe ski caps.

My experience isn't necessarily representative of everyone's. But in my career I've worked in six offices and in every single one, there were women who were perpetually cold during the winter. Mrs. Brad worked in multiple offices and was cold in all of them.

When women complain that it's too cold, they're right.

Not necessarily that the offices are too cold, although that's likely true. But they are right when they say it makes it harder to work when it's cold.

A study published last spring (when it was getting warm!) in the journal PLOS One showed that women improve their performance on basic tests as rooms got warmer. Specifically, the scientists said that women's math score went up two points and their verbal score went up one point for every degree the room increased.

(Of course, the study was in Germany, so "one degree" means "one degree Celsius." So to translate, you subtract 32 from umm . . . no, you add 32 and divide by . . . umm . . . IT'S TOO COLD IN HERE! OR MAYBE TOO HOT!)

Men, meanwhile, somehow improved in cooler rooms. But here's why women are right: Men's scores didn't really decrease much as it got warmer. In other words, cooler rooms hurt women and narrowly help men. Warmer rooms help women and really don't affect men.

Still . . . most offices stay cool. And women suffer.

As the researchers concluded, “Our results suggest that in gender-balanced workplaces, temperatures should be set significantly higher than current standards.”

Sure, employers may consider that a cost. After all, when you consider the cost of electricity (or gas) from PG&E, combined with all the extra fees they'll sneak on there to get the rest of us to cover the cost of the lawsuits they'll lose due to recent wildfires they caused, the bill can get expensive.

But employers should consider the other side of this argument. Keeping the office at 68 degrees (or 70 or 72) when half the employees are cold not only makes it a tough place to work, it hurts productivity.

Don't believe me? Just ask your female co-worker who is wearing her parka while slaving away at the cubicle next to yours.

I asked Sayeda, a friend who works in my office and was recently wrapped in a blanket while working. She agreed with the study's findings and attributed it to men having more hemoglobin.

"That sounds right," I told her. "Although I have no idea what hemoglobin is."

If the office were a little cooler, maybe I'd know. But Sayeda's performance would suffer.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Greatest Christmas songs (including 'Last Christmas')

And so this is Christmas . . . so let's start off with a controversial, correct opinion: "Jingle Bells" is not a Christmas song.

At no point are Jesus Christ, Santa Claus or Christmas mentioned. "Jingle Bells" is a winter song. How it got cast as a Christmas song (along with "Winter Wonderland," "Let it Snow" and even "Frosty the Snowman") is a mystery.

But there are great Christmas songs. Many of them. And because of public demand*, today I rank the 10 best. As you listen to a Christmas radio station while driving to work, you can now know whether you're listening to an elite Christmas song.

(* "Public demand" = me thinking of this while driving home from a Thanksgiving trip.)

All Christmas songs are eligible, from pop secular tunes to sacred hymns. The reasons vary, as you'll see.

Starting with No. 10:

10. All I Want for Christmas is You. Based on my musical tastes (it sounds like Motown!), this should be No. 1, but my dislike of Mariah Carey makes it impossible for me to fully enjoy this song. It is the most popular pop Christmas song ever, though, so it's on the list.

9. O Come All Ye Faithful. A joyous carol to belt out. "O come let us adore him . . ." is a great chorus that is easy to sing. (I've often wondered how the "joyful" and "triumphant" feel being left out of the title, though).

8. Sleigh Bells. A  good song that became great when the Ronettes did their version with Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound" behind them in the early 1960s. It gets ranked because of that version only.

7. O Come, O Come, Emmanuel. Maybe the only song on this list in a minor key (thinks to check, decides it's too hard), this haunting hymn is beautiful and lyrically rich.

6. The Christmas Song. Nat King Cole sings the definitive version, but any version is great. I don't know anyone who has roasted chestnuts on an open fire, but I also don't know anyone who dislikes this song.

5. Last Christmas. The peak of 1980s pop music, but charming. This was George Michael and Wham! at the top, which I loved. I'm pretty sure this is the most controversial choice on this list.

4. Silent Night. Baseball relief pitchers have walk-in music. Christmas church services have walk-out music: Silent Night. Everyone likes it.

3. Do They Know It's Christmas. More evidence that I watched a lot of MTV in the early to mid-1980s. This anthem is not only a really good song, it raised money for African famine relief–paving the way for "We Are The World," which was released four months later. It had Paul Young. George Michael. Boy George. Simon Le Bon. Bono. What else could you want?

2. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas. The most soulful song on the list, this is sentimental, sweet and sad. Whether it's the original by Judy Garland or one of the myriad remakes (my favorite is by The Pretenders), this always tugs at your heartstrings.

1. O Holy Night. The undisputed  greatest Christmas song of all time – with elite lyrics ("Long lay the world in sin and error pining, 'til He appeared and the soul felt its worth. A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices, for yonder breaks a new glorious morn") and a tune that gives great singers a chance to shine. When this song comes on – or when it's performed live – it is always worth your time.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

Nerf gets squished out of Hall of Fame again

Nerf continues to get squished by the National Toy Hall of Fame and we should be angry.

No offense to Matchbox Cars and coloring book, but 2019 is another year, another snub for Nerf.

The National Toy Hall of Fame announced its inductions last month, adding Matchbox Cards, the coloring book and what it called "the popular collectible card game," Magic: The Gathering from a field of 12 nominees.

No Nerf.

Again.

It's outrageous and voters for the Toy Hall of Fame should be embarrassed.  This is worse than Pete Rose and Barry Bonds being left out of the Baseball Hall of Fame, because Nerf didn't bet on games nor (allegedly) use performance-enhancing drugs. All Nerf has done is be one of the greatest toys for 50 consecutive years.

Yet there it is, sitting on the outside looking in while other toys waltz into the national toy shrine.

Nerf was introduced in 1970 as "the world's first official indoor ball" and immediately became a favorite due to the fact that you could throw a Nerf ball in the house (perhaps – and this is purely speculation – you could throw it at any of your three sisters, causing them to flinch).

I owned an original Nerf ball as well as early advancements– the Nerf basketball (with a hoop that hangs on a door) and the Nerf football (you could use it outside, too). Through the decades, Nerf continued to add new products, including the Nerf blaster, which was a nominee for this year's hall of fame.

Somehow the basic Nerf ball hasn't made it into the Toy Hall of Fame.

We thought Nerf was likely to be nominated after its hard-plastic cousin, the Wiffle Ball, earned a spot in 2017, but no luck. The 2018 class (Magic 8 Ball, Pinball and Uno) excluded it and so did this year's class.

Let's discuss that quickly. Two of this year's inductees are obviously worthy.

Matchbox cars are the lower-price rival to 2011 Toy Hall of Fame inductee Hot Wheels and should be enshrined.

The coloring book should have been inducted long ago  with other non-brand-specific toys (perhaps with stick in 2008, blanket in 2011 or bubbles in 2014). That coloring books can be used to teach – and are increasingly used by adults – makes them more versatile. They're a worthy inductee.

I'm not sure about Magic: The Gathering, which is something that I was unaware of until the Hall of Fame announcement. It's apparently a fantasy collector game, which is nowhere near as cool as a Nerf ball.

It's unclear why Nerf has been left out in the cold for the Toy Hall of Fame. Perhaps the voters don't appreciate what an advance Nerf was in toy technology. Perhaps people don't realize there was nothing like Nerf balls before they were introduced. Perhaps the voters take for granted that you can toss around a foamy ball and not break anything.

Or perhaps – and this just came to me – my sisters are among the voters for the Toy Hall of Fame and punishing me for things that happened early in the Nerf world.

Regardless, 2020 is the year to make things right.

Let's make 2020 the year Nerf finally makes it into the Hall of Fame.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.