Twenty years ago, no one would have believed we’d someday say the words “the inauguration of Governor Schwarzenegger.” In fact, at the time, no one would have believed Arnold could even pronounce the word “inauguration.” But it happened today.

Seeing it was especially odd because, yesterday, I watched the new “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” DVD. It’s not as good as “T2,” which was so stunning because of the visual effects, but in the new sequel they kept the linear story intact, and didn’t skimp on the explosions and devastation and stunts. In other words, if you bought and liked the original concept, you won’t be disappointed with the latest installment.

The best part comes on the commentary track of the DVD, which features Arnold, the director, and his co-stars. In one scene, Kristianna Loken, as the new high-tech Terminatrix, is pulled over by a cop for speeding through a red light at an intersection. As the cop approaches, the Terminatrix notices a Victoria’s Secret billboard featuring a busty model. To distract the cop, she inflates her robot breasts a couple of cup sizes.

On the commentary track, Governor Schwarzenegger says (and I quote verbatim so you can imagine this in your personal Arnold imitation), “This scene with the enlargement of the breasts was fantastic. In the audience, I saw women sitting there, telling each other, ‘Now that’s a great idea, I’ve got to check out where you get that done.’ So you can deflate and inflate your breasts on command. It’s a whole new concept. Because there’s some guys that like little breasts and there’s some guys who like big breasts. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could play both sides, sometimes even simultaneously?”

Congratulations, California, that’s your Governor talking! I’m not sure what kind of woman Arnold imagines would both inflate and deflate simultaneously — maybe some sort of lopsided woman from the future — but, as with all things Arnold, it would be fantastic, no matter what.

It’s nice to know the Governor is a dreamer.

At the other end of the country, the state of Massachusetts has denied one man his dream of winning the lottery. Okay, he’s a man with a dream and a very large bank account.

The odds of winning the Massachusetts lottery are 1 in 14 million. You could cut the odds down to 1 in 2 if you bought tickets covering half of the possible numeric combinations. That would mean a $7,000,000 outlay for a potential $39,000,000 payoff, or what gamblers call a big overlay. When one man tried to do it, the st the state told him he couldn’t. The lottery director said, “The lottery exists for all its players. One player seeking to potentially buy a jackpot goes against the spirit of our mission.”

Mission? What, are you going to the moon? Curing cancer? Teaching Jessica Simpson algebra?

C’mon, you’re running a legalized state-controlled gambling operation. If the guy’s got the money, sell him the tickets. Then take your cut — the tax revenue — and move on. You’re not affecting the chances of anyone else winning (they still have a 1 in 14 million shot for every dollar they spend), and you’re pumping up the jackpot at the same time. Worst case scenario is that some trailer park couple who stupidly invested their meager life savings in lottery tickets would have to split the pot with the high roller.

What I always find ironic about the lottery is that some people — and I admit to being one — won’t play it until the jackpot gets huge. In fact, I’d never play any game with odds that bad, so don’t look for me in line waiting for my Quick Picks. But if the prize is $300 million, and you’re going to buy a bunch of tickets for everyone in the office, sure, get $5 worth for me.

Why don’t we do it when the jackpot is only $10 million? Wouldn’t that be enough, even after taxes, to keep us going for awhile? Wouldn’t one million? Ah, but then the overlay isn’t big enough, making a bad bet even worse.

Which is why I don’t plop down $7,000,000 to buy up the other half of the possible combinations. That, and the fact that I’m about $6,999,500 shy right now. How much you got on you?