I find this objectionable on most every level.

What does having tattoos have to do with anything? I have no tattoos myself, but I don't see what the point of making this distinction is. The "heavily tattooed" (which is wholly subjective) are the dregs of society? They are the scoundrels? Hell, there is a girl on American Idol right now who has a tattoo down her entire left arm, which to me counts as "heavily tattooed." Does that alone discount her value as a singer or a performer, or more to what I believe Shapiro was getting at, as a human being?

A howling mob? I have attended baseball games, football games, basketballs games, and fights, and it seems to me that all of the fans at these events can be rightly classified as both "howling" and a "mob." Although, it seems to me in the sports other than fighting, there are regular incidents of fans charging the field, tearing down goalposts, rushing the court, streaking, and throwing refuse onto the field of play when that particular mob disagrees with the proceedings.

Which brings us back to the horrible, horrible use of a cage, which prevents the aforementioned mob (and by and large any projectiles they may wish to hurl towards the fighters) from interfering with the "field of play." Also, Let us not forget that the cage is the superior platform for combat sports from a safety perspective.

Evoking ideas of bloodsports doesn't even hold up, what with boxing having fundamental similarities, insomuch as two men are trying to "pummel each other into submission" in that sports as well. Meanwhile in the NFL, players are hitting and being hit so hard that they are suffering concussions which, in a number of cases, has caused irreversible psychological damage. Broken bones, blown out knees, blood, these are afterthoughts in Football, but in MMA it is inexcusable? That seems hypocritical to a certain extent.

Finally, I think the comparison between MMA and the gladiators of ancient Rome is tired, hackneyed, and flawed. This will not stop every anti-MMA pundit from continuing to use it ad nauseam, but that doesn't mean it has any value in the discussion, particularly as MMA is featuring more skilled fighters than ever before and has more support from more governing bodies than it ever has.

I liken this to a pro football columnist writing about why he thinks George Bush is a douchebag instead of about the upcoming NFL draft.  

That being said, I'll add my own two cents about the hypocrisy of this guy's column

"And wouldn't it be something if CBS aired its first MMA telecast a few hours after its Saturday afternoon Masters coverage on April 12? Perhaps network publicists could refer to the twin bill as Beauty and The Beast."

Wow.  Advocacy of golf as "beauty" and MMA as the "beast."  Golf is not a sport.  It is a painfully boring activity designed specifically for and by the elite class.  Golf courses are wasting an alarming chunk of viable acreage in America that could most certainly be used for any number of better things.  Not to mention tremendous degree of pollutants required to maintain them invariably end up in all the surrounding rivers, streams, lakes and springs.  I could certainly go on from here, but you're better off finding George Carlin's words on the matter.